Atchut Upendra Raikar vs Surya Upendra Raikar (Since ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 117 Bom

JUDGMENT

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.

1. Heard the Advocates for the petitioner and respondents No. 1(a) to 1(f) and 2, 3 and 4. Neither the respondents No. 5 to 10 are present nor anyone to represent them. Notice was issued for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage. Failure on the part of the respondents No. 5 to 10 to appear before the Court, apparently discloses that they are not interested in contesting the proceedings.

2. The petitioner challenges the Order dated 15th December, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge S.D., Margao in Special Civil Suit No. 74/1999/III. By the impugned order the trial Court has dismissed the applications for setting aside of abatement, condonation of delay in bringing the L.Rs. as well as the application for bringing the L.Rs. on record consequent to the death of defendant No. 5 in the suit. The applications have been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to show sufficient cause for not filing the application for bringing the L.Rs. of defendant No. 5 within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of death of defendant No. 5.

3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and dissolution of the partnership and accounts. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant No. 5 expired on 2nd December, 2003. On 17 February, 2004 the Advocate who was appearing for the deceased defendant, brought the said fact of death of defendant No. 5 to the notice of the Court. On 23 March, 2004 the petitioner filed the above referred three applications namely for setting aside of abatement, for condonation of delay and for bringing the legal representatives on record. The applications were objected to by the respondent by filing their reply on 28 April, 2004. By the impugned order, after hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the applications.

4. Placing reliance in the decision in the matter of Veena R. Rodkar v. Rukmini wd/o Vasudeo Narayan and Ors. reported in 1992 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 501 : 1992(1) Mh.L.J. 606, Vasant Pandu alias Pandurang Birwatkar and Anr. v. Shankar Dhendu Ghole and Anr. reported in 1996(1) Mah.L.R. 11 and Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1201, the learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner submitted that though the parties are close relations, the Advocate for the deceased defendant informed the Court about the death of the said defendant only on 17 February, 2004 in terms of the provisions of law under Order 22, Rule 10A of C.P.C. and thereafter the petitioner filed the application for bringing the L.Rs. on record. Considering the fact that the provisions comprised under Order 22 of C.P.C. relates to the procedure for continuation of the suit on the death of the party or parties thereto, those provisions are to be interpreted liberally and considering the facts of the case, there was nothing on record to disclose any intentional delay on the part of the petitioner in bringing the L.Rs. on record and therefore the trial Court ought not to have adopted a hyper technical approach in the matter.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, placing reliance in the decision of Doddappa Maritammappa Basaput and Anr. v. Erappa Mudakappa Navalli and Ors. submitted that the obligation of the Advocate for the deceased party which arises under Order 22, Rule 10A cannot by itself extend the period of limitation nor it has anything to do with the steps which the plaintiff is bound to take in terms of Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. to bring the L.Rs. of deceased defendant on record within the stipulated period. He further submitted that the decisions of the learned Single Judges in Veena Rodkar's case and in Birwatkar's case are clearly distinguishable on facts and the same do not lay down the proposition of law which is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Undoubtedly the defendant No. 5 expired on 2 July, 2003. The application bringing the L.Rs. on record was filed on 23 March, 2004 and as the application was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days and as there was already abatement of suit on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 5 on record within the stipulated period as well as failure to move for setting aside of abatement within the prescribed period, there was an application for condonation of delay and all these applications have been rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. It is settled law that in case of rejection of application for condonation of delay once the Court exercises its discretion in that regard, the writ Court or revisional Court cannot interfere in such order unless the discretion appears to have been exercised arbitrarily or illegally or contrary to the materials on record or there is palpable error in exercise of jurisdiction by the concerned Court while condoning or refusing to condone the delay.

7. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the trial Court has held that the petitioner very well knew about the death of defendant No. 5 from the date of her death itself, besides that the petitioner had also observed mourning period being the first degree relation of the deceased defendant. It has also been held that there is a categorical statement of fact in that regard by the respondent in their affidavit and the same had not been rebutted or disputed, nor denied. Being so, the trial Court has held that it is not a case of unawareness of the death of defendant No. 5 and in that view of the matter there was no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay in bringing the L.Rs. on record.

8. It is pertinent to note that the application which was filed by the petitioner for setting aside of abatement specifically stated that the defendant No. 5 expired on 2 July, 2003. However, her Advocate had informed about the death at the hearing which took place on 17 February, 2004 and that there had been delay in filing the application for bringing the L.Rs. on record and therefore it was prayed that abatement be set aside. The other applications namely the application for bringing the L.Rs. on record and for condonation of delay also do not disclose any other fact as such in support of claim for condonation of delay. Obviously therefore the application for condonation of delay was sought for primarily with reference to the fact of intimation of death of defendant No. 5 by her Advocate to the Court. It is also apparent from the impugned order as well as the arguments canvassed across the Bar that the main contention of the petitioner before the trial Court as well as in this petition has been that the fact of death of defendant No. 5 was informed by her Advocate to the Court on 17 February, 2004 and thereafter the application was filed by the petitioner to bring the L.Rs. on record. Apparently unawareness of the date of death was not the cause which was made out by the petitioner for the condonation of delay, rather the cause for condonation of delay related to the discharge of duty of the Advocate for the deceased party in terms of Order 22, Rule 10A. Perusal of the impugned order nowhere discloses any application of mind by the trial Court to this aspect. Apparently therefore the exercise of discretion by the trial Court cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of law or in proper exercise of its jurisdiction, rather it is apparently arbitrary. This clearly warrants interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction in the impugned order.

9. Order 22, Rule 10A provides that : "Whenever 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." And referring to this rule it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was obligatory for the Advocate for the deceased defendant to bring the fact of death to the notice of the Court so that necessary intimation in that regard could have been given by the Court to the petitioner and thereupon the petitioner would have taken the necessary steps to bring the L.Rs. On the other hand, it is sought to be contended that the application of the Advocate in terms of Order 22, Rule 10A has nothing to do with the obligation of the parties to the suit to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased defendant on record. In that connection attention was also drawn to the decision of the Karnataka High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Doddappa's case referring to Rule 10A and to the Law Commission's recommendations in 54 report in relation to the necessity for introduction of Rule 10A in Order 22, held that:- "There is nothing in Rule 10A of Order 22 of the Code, which enables the Court to hold that the limitation to file an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record commences from the date of informing the Court about the death of the party by the counsel representing the said parry or to hold that the plaintiff, or the appellant, or the petitioner, as the case may be, who is required to make an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record within the period prescribed under law, is relieved of the burden to explain the delay in making such application."

10. The proposition of law as above laid down in the said decision of the Karnataka High Court can hardly be disputed. However, the said decision cannot be construed to lay down the law as sought to be proposed on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the Rule 10A of Order 22 has nothing to do with the obligation of the plaintiff under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. If the said contention is accepted, the provisions under Order 22, Rule 10A would be rendered otiose. In fact, Clause 76(v) of the Statement of Objects and reasons behind the amendment which in corporated in the C.P.C. and published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 8 April, 1974, Part II, Section 2 page 327, stated that "New Rule 10A is being inserted to impose an obligation on the pleaders of the parties to communicate to the Court the death of the party represented by him." Apparently the obligation which is sought to be imposed under Rule 10A is not without any justification or without any purpose behind it. It is not merely for the sake of intimation to the Court about the death of the parties. It is obviously to facilitate the Court to proceed with the matter in such a way that the proceedings before the Court are not rendered futile nor the court's time is wasted as well as that the party to the proceedings are not put to hardship and the Court is able to decide the dispute effectively and pass an order which can be given effect to it without any impediment of the nature of failure on the part of the Court to hear the concerned parties. Being so, it cannot be said that the obligation on the part of the Advocate to inform the Court about the death of his party is a mere formality. It is essentially for the benefit of the Court as well as of all the parties to the concerned proceedings.

11. Viewed from the above angle, therefore, whenever a party files an application for bringing the L.Rs. on record beyond the period prescribed and discloses the ground for condonation of delay to be the delay on the part of the Advocate of the deceased party to inform the Court about the death, certainly the circumstances under which the application has been filed and the ground disclosed therein is to be considered by the concerned Court to ascertain whether it discloses sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not. The failure on the part of the trial Court in this regard therefore renders the impugned order to be bad in law.

12. The trial Court has also observed that the decision of this Court in Veena Rodkar's case does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The impugned order however does not disclose on what basis the said finding has been arrived at by the trial Court. Undisputedly the decision in Veena Rodkar's case was by the learned Single Judge of this Court. When such a decision is cited before the Court below, it cannot be brushed aside by merely observing that, the same does not apply to the facts of the case. It is necessary for the lower Court to analyse the facts of the decision cited and to arrive at a finding as to how those facts are different from the facts before the Court below or if there is any other reason for distinguishing the said decision and only thereupon the lower Court can say that the decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is always to be remembered that the decision of this Court is binding on all the lower Courts either in the State of Goa or in the State of Maharashtra. On this count also the impugned order is unsustainable.

13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is also justified in drawing attention to the decision the Apex Court in Ram Nath Sao's case wherein it was ruled thus:

Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a strait jacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slip-shod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter, courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way.

14. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that in a case where a record apparently disclosed knowledge of the death of the party, independently of Order 22, Rule 10A, such party cannot take advantage of such intimation to seek condonation of delay. All said and done this point has also not been considered by the Court below while disposing of the matter. Primarily it will be for the trial Court taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the ground disclosed in the application to consider the same and to arrive at a proper finding in that regard.

15. In the circumstances, therefore, the Court below having failed to exercise its discretion in the manner it was required to be exercised while deciding the applications (Exhs. 18, 19 and 20), the impugned order for the reasons stated above cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside. As I am exercising powers under Article 227, it is not possible to deal with the applications in this proceedings and while setting aside the order, the matter will have to be remanded to the trial Court to deal the matter in accordance with the provisions of law, bearing in mind the observations made above.

16. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below to try the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of law and bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.