SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 164

R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR
POTHINA NARASAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. – Appellant
Versus
MARUPILLA AMMAJI – Respondent


ORDER

1. Prayer for bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased petitioner is allowed.

2. Permission to file SLP is granted.

3. Leave granted.

4. A suit relating to declaration of title of the suit property was pending in the trial court. Though a copy of the plaint is not available on record, however, it is stated at the Bar that the suit seeks declaration of title with consequential relief of injunction. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the sole plaintiff died. The legal representative moved applications under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment, setting aside of abatement and condonation of delay in moving the applications. The trial court on inquiry held a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC to be made out; directed the delay in moving the applications to be condoned and abatement to be set aside; and allowed liberty to the proposed legal representative to be brought on record in place of the deceased plaintiff.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the defendants preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court has, in exercise of it





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top