Amol Rattan Singh, J.

CM No.107-C of 1992

By this application dismissal of the accompanying appeal is sought on the ground that it has abated and further, that action be taken as per law against the appellants for filing a false affidavit in this Court.

The application is seen to be dated 04.01.1992 with the affidavit accompanying it surprisingly dated 05.08.1991, i.e. the affidavit in fact predates the application which it contends to support.

Be that as it may, it is the contention of the applicant cross-objector (plaintiff in the suit- Tarlok Singh) that the sole appellant, Munshi Singh, had died on 25.05.1990 in village Machhli Kalan and that the legal representatives of the deceased appellant not having filed an application for impleadment as appellants in his place, within the time prescribed for doing so, the appeal actually stands abated.

The application seeking impleadment of the legal representatives was filed on 11.09.1990, with the date of death of appellant Munshi Singh shown as 25.06.1990 instead of 25.05.1990, allegedly in order to deliberately bring the application seeking impleading of the LRs within limitation.

It is further contended that the application was allowed vide an order of a co-ordinate Bench dated 22.02.1991, on the ground that it had been filed within limitation.

Yet further, it is contended that apart from the legal representatives shown in CM no. 2864-C of 1990 (i.e. the application by which the LRs of the appellant are sought to be impleaded in his place), one Lachhmi Devi, a daughter of Munshi Singh, was also alive and similarly, Jarnail Singh, Bhakhu Singh and Nek Singh, sons of Hazura Singh, and Karnail Kaur and Jarnail Kaur, daughters of Hazura Singh, who was a son of Munshi Singh, who pre-deceased him, were also not sought to be impleaded as LRs.

It is, therefore, contended that firstly, the application (CM no.2864-C of 1990) not having been filed within limitation and secondly, the aforesaid facts having been concealed and the date of death of Munshi Singh having been given wrongly, the application deserves to be dismissed.

When this application (CM no.107-C of 1992) came up for hearing before a co-ordinate Bench on 05.02.1992, it was ordered to be put up before the Bench that had allowed the application of the LRs, i.e. CM no.2864-C of 1990.

Notice having been issued in the present application, a reply is also seen to have been filed thereto on behalf of the non-applicant (i.e. the LRs of the original appellant Munshi Singh), in which reply, firstly, even knowledge of the cross-objections filed by the applicant in this case, i.e. Tarlok Singh plaintiff, has been denied, though it has been admitted that Munshi Singh actually died on 25.05.1990 and that the application for bringing on record his LRs was filed on 11.09.1990. The factum of the date of death being shown as 25.06.1990 instead of 25.05.1990 has been contended to be an inadvertent mistake attributed to the lack of knowledge on the part of the applicant, Bachan Singh son of Munshi Singh, he being illiterate. Similarly, the delay in filing the application for impleading him as an LR of Munshi Singh, has also been attributed to his illiteracy.

Further explanation has been given that had the applicant known of the period of limitation, he could well have also moved an application seeking condonation of delay in filing such an application but he, taking the date of his death to be 25.06.1990, did not file such an application.

As regards the non-impleadment of Smt. Lachhmi Devi and sons of the pre-deceased son of Munshi Singh, it has been stated that the daughter was married long time ago and had relinquished her right in the property of the deceased Munshi Singh and similarly, Jarnail Singh, Bapu Singh and Harnek Singh, sons of Hazura Singh, had also relinquished their right in the property, as had his daughters Karnail Kaur and Jarnail Kaur, which was the reason for them not having approached this Court by way of filing any second ap