The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of the application for substitution of legal representatives due to failure to comply with limitation requirements, emphasizing the importance of timely applications in civil proceedings.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned XXVI District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Suit No.64-A/2016 whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 read with Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for bringing the legal representatives of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 on record.

2. The brief facts of the case is that appellants and respondent no.3 to 16/plaintiffs have filed civil suit before the trial Court against respondents no.1

and 2/defendants no.1 and 2 for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs no.3, 6 and 19 have died and on 19.12.2014, plaintiffs came to know that respondent/defendant no.1 has died and after that on getting information about his legal heirs, the appellants with the respondents no.3 to 16 on 19.03.2014 have filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 of the CPC alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the effect of abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the plaintiffs no.3,6 and 19 and respondent/defendant no.1 on record, but the said application due to oversight mistake correct provision Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC could not be mentioned. After notice to the L.Rs of respondent no.1, L.Rs. of respondent no.1 filed reply on 15.05.2019 of the application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 of CPC and application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, denying the averments made in the applications and stated that the said application is time barred because the respondent no.1 has died on 20.06.2014. At the time of filing the said applications mistakenly provision under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the effect of abatement could not be mentioned, therefore, the appellants rectified the error and filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of CPC on 22.09.2022 before the trial Court which is part and earlier application dated 19.03.2014. The L.Rs of the respondent no.1 filed reply of the said application on 11.10.2022.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of limitation.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants filed this appeal only pressing the impugned order with respect to L.Rs. of dead respondent no.1. Copy of the impugned order is Annexure A-1.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has committed error in passing the impugned order. He further submitted that trial Court while deciding the application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has committed grave error in adopting hyper-technical approach. The delay was just 164 days which was liable to be condoned. The trial Court committed error in holding that application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC is filed with delay of 7 years. So prays for setting aside the impugned order and revival of the suit against the L.Rs. of dead respondent no.1.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the document filed by the appellants it is found that appellants had knowledge on 19.12.2014 with regard to the death of respondent no.1. Thereafter appellant filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC (Annexure A-3) on 19.03.2015 without supporting any application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and Order 22 Rule 5(a) and (b) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. After lapse of 7 years, appellants filed application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC before the trial Court, but did not file any application under Order 22 Rule 5(a) and (b) of CPC for revival of appeal against L.Rs of dead respondent no.1.with application under Sect