Court emphasized the necessity of adjudicating rights based on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities in allowing substitution of LRs and condoning delay.

1. These three interlocutory applications have been filed by the petitioner (appellant in S.A. No. 251 of 1993) under Order 22 Rule 4 and 9 of the C.P.C., 1908 and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 praying for substitution of the LRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 (Maheswar Thatoi) in S.A. No. 251 of 1993 after setting aside the abatement order and condoning the delay in filing the I.A.

2. It has been stated by the petitioner in these three I.As, supported with separate affidavits for condoning the delay that, the respondent No. 1 in S.A. No. 251 of 1993 i.e. Maheswar Thatoi expired on 31.12.2007 leaving behind his LRs indicated in the petition vide I.A. No. 612 of 2024, but, the appellant could not take steps for substitution of his LRs in due time, only due to her innocence and ignorance about the law being a rustic village old lady coupled with her sufferings from various ailments due to her extreme old age being in the age of 75 years. In the month of June 2024, when the second appeal vide S.A. No. 251 of 1993 was listed, then, her counsel came to know for the first time from the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that, the respondent No. 1 has expired in the meanwhile and thereafter, his counsel contacted her (petitioner) and instructed her (petitioner) to file the petition for substitution. Then, she (petitioner) filed these three I.As praying for substitution of the LRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 after setting aside the order of abatement and condoning the delay stating that, the delay in filing the petition for substitution of the LRs of respondent No. 1 by her (petitioner) is neither intentional nor deliberate, but, only due to the above bona fide reasons. Accordingly, the notices were issued to the PLRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 and after receiving the said notices, the PLRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 made their appearance in this I.A. engaging their learned counsel.

3. At the time of hearing of these three I.As, only the LRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 contested through their learned counsel without filing any written objection and relied upon the decisions reported in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, AIR 2013 SCW 6158 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Another, AIR 2012 SCW 1812 .

4. Accordingly, neither any of the Opposite Parties nor any of the PLRs of the respondent No. 1 in S.A. No. 251 of 1993 filed any written objection against the I.As of the petitioner.

5. So, The contents of all the three I.As filed by the petitioner supported with separate affidavits have not at all been controverted by the Opposite Parties including the LRs of the deceased respondent No. 1 in S.A. No. 251 of 1993 through any written objection.

6. As such, the contents in the I.As filed by the petitioner supported with affidavits separately in each I.As remained uncontroverted. The law concerning the uncontroverted affidavits have already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) 1992 Civ.C.C. 232 (Allahabad): Jagran Prakashan (Private) Ltd. Vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal & Others-Affidavit-Uncontroverted affidavit should normally be believed unless there was something on record falsifying the facts mentioned in the affidavit. (Para 10)

(ii) 2008 Criminal Court Cases 664, (Allahabad): Ram Ujagar Yadava Vs. State of U.P. & Others Affidavit-If no affidavit in rebuttal is filed and the averments made in the affidavit are not controverted then the said averments must be accepted is true and correct drawing the presumption in favour of the petitioner. (Para 8)

(iii) 2019 (I) CLR (D.B.) 461: (Smt.) Aditi Das Vs. Sri Seshadev Das-Though, the petitioner has filed this petition along with an affidavit, in order words, her petition is supported by annexing affidavit, the counter filed by the Opposite Party is not supported by any affidavit. Rather,