IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE FA No. 531 of 2002 (SMT. SUNITA MATHUR Vs RANCHOD DAS)

Dated : 03-09-2022 Ms. Nandini Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1(a), (Mr. Jai Prakash, Mr.

Dharmendra Yadav, and respondent No.1(b)-Suhagi.

Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1(a), (Mrs. Neha Yadav, Mrs. Ayushi Yadav, and Mr. Subham Yadav).

Heard on I.A. No.7315/2021 to the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent, and learned counsel for proposed LRs of expired-respondent No.1(a) Radheshyam Yadav.

Shri Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1(a), (Mrs. Neha Yadav, Mrs. Ayushi Yadav, and Mr. Subham Yadav) submits that he has no objection on I.A. No.7315/2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1(a)Radhesyam Yadav s/o Late Shri Rachoddas Yadav has died on 10.7.2021, the death certificate is annexed as Annexure “A”, and hence, prays to allow the application and to implead the names of proposed LRs of expired respondent No.1(a)Radhesyam Yadav as mentioned in the application.

Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1(a), (Mr. Jai Prakash, Mr.

Dharmendra Yadav and respondent No.1(b)-Suhagi has filed the reply to I.A. No.7315/2021 and stated that after the death of Radheyshyam, his legal wife - Sugna Bai and sons Jai Prakash and Dharmendra are legal representatives and they are necessary party but in spite of knowledge of the fact, appellant deliberately has not made party to Radheshyam’s wife(Sugna Bai) and appellant unnecessary has proposed to join Neha, Ayushi, and Shubham as LRs of deceased Radheshyam. It is also stated that Ranchod Das (original respondent No.1) executed a will in favour of Jaiprakash on 27.12. 2002, which is already on record before the learned trial court as Exhibit P-2, therefore, Neha Yadav, Ayushi Yadav, and Shubham Yadav are unnecessary parties to the case and on this ground alone this application deserves to be rejected. It is also stated that the respondent No.1(a) Radheshyam expired on 10.07.2021 and the application had to be submitted before 09.10.2021, it appears that the application has been submitted on 30.10.2021 therefore it is barred by time and no application for condonation of delay has been submitted therefore on this ground also this application deserves to be rejected and appeal be dismissed as abated because respondent No.2 Babulal and respondent No.3-Basanti Lal have also expired on 11.07.2006 and 13.10.2012 respectively and no appropriate application has been submitted within time. Hence, prays for dismissal of the application as well as appeal with heavy compensatory cost.

On the point of limitation, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in "In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation" order dated 10.01.2022 and on the issue of non-

impleadment of legal representatives of expired respondents, he placed reliance on the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village Vs. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by Lrs and others, (2008) 8 SCC, 321. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that information regarding the death of Babulal-respondent No.2 and Basantilal -respondent No.3 came into the knowledge of the appellant, when the reply was filed on 16.06.2022 and in that context, he will file an appropriate application on the next date.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and gone through the citations placed by the learned counsel.

Hon’ble Apex Court in "In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation" Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 with Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021, 21 of 2022 and 29 of 2022 has passed f