IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2026 In CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 200 of 2011 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2026 In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 200 of 2011 ================================================================ SURAJBEN WD/O CHHATRASANG RAJ(DECD)THROUGH INDRAJITSINH MANSANG RAJ Versus NANDUBEN WD/O ADESANG HIMATSANG (TO DELETE) & ORS.

================================================================

Appearance:

MS ASHA D TIWARI for MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the PETITIONER(s)

No. 1 MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,4,5,6 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 02/04/2026 COMMON IA ORDER ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.2 of 2026:-

1. This is an application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 2578 days, caused in filing the Civil Application for joining legal heir of deceased opponent No.4 on record of the main matter.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Asha D. Tiwari for learned advocate Mr. Chirag B. Patel for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. K.R. Dave for the respondents.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. K.R.

Dave waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has good case on merits as well as on law. It is further submitted that no declaration of death of opponents was submitted by the opponents till the last date of listing of the matter. Applicants could not file application to bring legal heirs on record as applicants were not aware about the death of No.4. It is further submitted that there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicants, therefore, the present application may be allowed by condoning the delay. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents could not contradict the aforesaid submissions and submitted that appropriate order may be passed by this Court. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the respondents.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application for not filing the application within prescribed the period of limitation, it would be apposite to refer the provisions contained under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code, which is reproduced as under:-

“ORDER XXII DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY OF PARTIES

10A. Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party- Wherever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.”

7. Undisputedly, there was no declaration of death by either learned advocate for the opponent No.4. Record indicates that opponent No.4 has passed away on 27.11.2018. The knowledge about the death of opponent No.4 is after the second appeal is admitted. Sufficient cause is made out by applicant.

8. In view of the above facts, the present application requires consideration and the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2026:- 1. This application is filed for bringing legal heirs of the deceased-opponent No.4 on record of the captioned appeal.

Copy of death certificate is produced on record.

2. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the heirs of the deceased-opponent No.4 are required to be brought on record.

3. In view of the averments made in the application and having considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants, the heirs of the deceased are nece