The court emphasized the importance of substantive justice over technicalities in allowing substitution and condonation of delay in civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, who have instituted the instant petition assailing the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda in Regular Suit No.120/1982, whereby an application moved by the private-respondents for substitution along with an application for condonation of delay which has been allowed. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred a civil revision against the said order which has been dismissed by the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Gonda in Civil Revision No.90/2022.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the original-plaintiff Munna Lal (who died during pendency of the suit) and is now represented by his legal heirs, who are the private-respondents herein instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed and injunction against Triloki Nath the original-defendant No.1 and Raj Kumar Pandey the original-defendant No.2.

3. The controversy which was raised in the plaint was that the original-plaintiff claimed rights over the property in question on the basis of adverse possession and he assailed the sale-deed which was executed by Triloki Nath the original-defendant No.1 in favour of Raj Kumar Pandey the original-defendant No.2 and the suit was registered as R.S. No.120/1982.

4. For the purpose of the present controversy, it would be seen that upon the death of Raj Kumar Pandey, an application was moved by the private-respondents seeking condonation of delay as well as substitution on 08.11.2021. The said application was moved along with an application seeking condonation of delay and the same have been brought on record as Annexure No.17 and 18 respectively with the petition.

5. In response to the said applications of substitution and condonation of delay, the present petitioners filed their objections on 06.01.2022 wherein primarily in Paragraph-4 to 10 of the objections, it was stated that the grounds taken by the private-respondents for seeking condonation of delay and substitution were patently false. The contention is that the deceased Raj Kumar Pandey was an influential person of the locality and also had a political ambition and thus he was very well known in the locality where not only the private-respondents but even the petitioners resides. It was also urged that the private-respondents were the neighbourers and they were very well aware of the fact that the original-defendant No.2 Raj Kumar Pandey had died and it was wrongly and falsely alleged that they received the information regarding the death from rumors flouting whereas the record would indicate that the information regarding the death was given to the Court by the clerk of the erstwhile counsel appearing for the defendant No.2 and as such it cannot be said that the private-respondents were not aware.

6. It was also urged that the defendant No.2 had died on 14.07.2018 and as such application for substitution and condonation of delay was hugely time barred and delayed by 1041 days.

7. It is also stated that even if the date of information which was furnished by the clerk of the counsel for the defendant No.2 is seen i.e. from 27.07.2021 even then the application moved by the private-respondents was on 08.11.2021, hence, even from that date, it was hugely delayed.

8. It is pointed out that while moving the application for substitution and condonation of delay, there was no prayer for setting aside the abatement and as such unless and until sufficient cause is made out, the delay could not be condoned nor the substitution application could have been allowed. It is also stated that it was incumbent upon the private-respondents to have first made out a case of sufficient cause and in light of the facts stated it could not be disputed by the private-respondents that they were not aware of the death of the defendant No.2, hence, a person who is not vigilant for his right cannot be