Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhaiya & Anr. vs Ramchandra & Ors. on 21 January, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL VERMA, J.
S.A. no. 289/2005
Kanhaiyalal and others
vs
Ramchandra and others
______________________________________________
Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri B.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondents
___________________________________________________ ___
ORDER
( Delivered on21/01/2022)
Heard on I.A no. 5054/2021, which is an application filed
under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
interim relief of maintaining status-quo was granted on
13/11/2006, thereafter, this appeal was never listed for hearing
before the Court. On 22/07/2021, an application for urgent
hearing along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
CPC was filed by respondent nos 1 and 2. By this application,
present appellant came to know about the death of respondent
no. 1 because during pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 had never informed the Court regarding death
of respondent no. 1, therefore, the delay from 06/04/2006 caused
in bringing legal representatives on record is based on sufficient
cause emanating from lack of information of death of respondent
no. 1, hence it is prayed that the appellant be permitted to take
the legal representatives of respondent no. 1 on record and the
delay caused therein be condoned.
To bolster his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant
has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court
delivered in the case of Mithallat Dalsangar Singh reported
in ( 2003) 10 SCC 691 (para 8 and 9); Ramnath Sao
reported in ( 2002 (2) SUPREME 143 (para-11) and Ram
Sakal Singh reported in (1997) 5 SCC 192 (para 12 and
13).
On perusal of the the aforementioned judgments, it is found
that during pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for the
respondent did not inform about death of respondent no. 1 and
this fact came to knowledge of the appellant first time on
22/07/2021. The appellant was not aware about the death of
respondent no. 1, therefore, sufficient cause has been shown by
the appellant, hence the I.A is allowed and the delay from
06/04/2006 to 02/08/2021 in gringing the Lrs of deceased/
respondent no. 1 is hereby condoned.
The appellant has filed I.A. no. 5050/2021 which is an
application filed under Order 22 Rule 4(5) of the C.P.C, by which
the appellant prays for bringing LRs of respondent no.1 on record.
Respondent no. 1 has died on 06/04/2006. This fact came
to the knowledge of the appellant on 02/08/2021. The application
is well supported an affidavit, therefore, the I.A. Is allowed and
proposed Lrs of respondent no. 1 are taken on record. The
appellant is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the
cause-title of the appeal memo.
Appellant has also filed an application i.e. I.A. no.
5052/2021, which is filed under Order22 Rule 9 of C.P.C, by which
the appellant prays that abatement of appeal against respondent
no. 1 be set aside.
The application is well supported by an affidavit. Sufficient
cause has been show by the appellant. LRs of respondent no. 1 is
necessary party in this appeal, because respondent no. 1 has also
claimed his share in the suit property, therefore, the I.A. Is
allowed and abatement of appeal against respondent no. 1 is set
aside.
Also heard on I.A. no. 5055/2021 which is an application
filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for deleting the name of
respondent no. 3 ( originally respondent no.1) from the array of
parties.
Respondent no. 3 Rambabai had expired on 18/02/2015.
Her death certificate has been filed, therefore, the I.A is allowed
and the appellant is directed to delete the name of respondent
no. 3 (originally respondent no.1) from the array of parties in the
memo of appeal
List the matter after eight weeks.
I.R, if any to continue till the next date of hearing.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by AMOL N
MAHANAG
Date: 2022.01.22 12:01:09 +05'30'
