IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Awasthi, J.
Ratanlal - Appellant
Versus
Shivlal and others - Respondents
S.A. No. 784 Of 2005
Decided On : 27-10-2016
Abatement - Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 3, Order 22 Rule 9, Section 5 of Limitation Act - Cases referenced: Prithvi Raj (Dead) by Lrs. v. Collector, Land Acquisition, H.P. (2005) 12 SCC 198; Ram Sumiran and others v. D.D.C. and others (1985) 1 SCC 431; Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (dead) by LRs and others, 2009 (1) MPLJ 510; H.Dohil Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Limited and another, (2015) 1 SCC 680
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal, but after the appellant's death, no application was filed to bring the legal representatives on record, leading to the appeal being dismissed as abated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal had abated by operation of law and that sufficient grounds were not presented for setting aside the abatement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives on record should be condoned and the abatement set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of due diligence in filing appeals and the need for valid explanations for delays, citing the case of H.Dohil Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Limited and another, (2015) 1 SCC 680.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as abated.
S.K. Awasthi, J.
This appeal is by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2005 passed by First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 2A/2001, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2000 passed by First Civil Judge Class-2, Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 98A/1999.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff Ratanlal died on 11.10.2008. Thereafter, after lapse of a period of more than six years, the legal representatives of deceased appellant filed an application under Order 22 Rules, 3 and 11 Civil Procedure Code for bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant on record, together with an application under Order 22, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 5 of Limitation Act Civil Procedure Code on 20.1.2015 to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 22, Rule 3 and 11 Civil Procedure Code and to set aside the abatement. In the applications the legal representatives/applicants contended that the appeal was filed in the year 2005 and then it was listed only in the year 2014. On 28.3.2014 appeal was admitted for final hearing and notices were directed to be issued to the respondent. Again the case was listed on 15.9.2014. From the service report, it came to the knowledge that the respondent No.6 had died and counsel was directed to take steps for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.6. On 1.10.2014 and 12.11.2014 the case was listed for the same purpose. As the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.6 were already on record as respondents No.7 and 8, therefore, the name of respondent No.6 was ordered to be deleted on 11.12.2014. Thereafter, the counsel sent a letter on the address of the appellant, thereupon wife of the appellant along with son Devendra contacted the counsel and told about the death of appellant Ratanlal. On their instructions, the applications were prepared and submitted before this Court.
3. It is also contended that the applicants/legal representatives of the deceased appellant were not aware about pendency of present second appeal and further son of deceased appellant, namely, Devendra was in jail and he was released from jail on 20.4.2013. In these circumstances, the application for setting aside the abatement could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, delay deserves to be condoned and applications be treated to be within time and legal representatives of deceased Ratanlal be taken on record. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Prithvi Raj (Dead) by Lrs. v. Collector, Land Acquisition, H.P. and another (2005) 12 SCC 198; Ram Sumiran and others v. D.D.C. and others (1985) 1 SCC 431; and, Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (dead) by LRs and others, 2009 (1) MPLJ 510.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the applications and stated that the averments of the applications and reasons for delay in filing the applications are false and fabricated. It is also submitted that son of deceased appellant, namely, Chandrakant is well to do and educated person. He is Deputy Director in the Industry Department and residing in Gwalior itself. He knows the process and procedures of law as well as the factum of death of appellant. The reasons shown in the application for not filing it in time are not justified and prayed for rejection of the applications as well as dismissal of the appeal as abated.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.
6. It is borne out from the record that this second appeal was filed by original plaintiff Ratanlal in the year 2005 and thereafter it was listed on 6.3.2014 for hearing. On that date appellant Ratanlal was reported to have died and two weeks' time was prayed for filing appropriate application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant but the
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
H. Dohil Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Limited
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.