Mahesh Kumar & Ors. vs Ramnarayan & Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 5834 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mahesh Kumar & Ors. vs Ramnarayan & Ors. on 21 March, 2025

                                                              1                                   SA-1006-2005
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                       SA No. 1006 of 2005
                                         (MAHESH KUMAR & ORS. Vs RAMNARAYAN & ORS. AND OTHERS )



                           Dated : 21-03-2025
                                 Shri K.K Pandey -Advocate for appellants.
                                 Shri P.C Paliwal -Advocate for respondent no.1 and 3.

Heard on I.A No. 20251/2024 filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, along with I.A No. 20249/2024 filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C and I.A No.20247/2024 filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent no.2 was working outside and no information was received to death to the appellant and the respondent no.2 died on 05.05.2000 and such information has been received on 02.08.2024. The death of respndent no.2 wife has also taken place. Hence, legal representatives of respondent no.2 be taken on record.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent no.2 was residing in Bombay. He had died in Bombay, so they could not get the information of the death of the respondent

no.2 and that is why delay has been caused. Hence, abatement be set aside and legal representatives of respondent no.2 be permitted to be taken on record. Notice were served on the legal representative of the deceased respondent.

As per office report notice has been served to the legal representative of the respondent no.2, but none appeared. On the last date of hearing, Shri

2 SA-1006-2005 P.C Paliwal, learned counsel has submitted that he may file the power, but now he has expressed his inability to file the power and submitted before the Court that the parties had not consulted him and not given the power, hence, he is unable to file the power.

Thus, without hearing the legal representative of respondent no.2, I.As are being heard. The death certificate annexed with the application, and from the record of the appeal, trial court and judgment of the trial court, it appears that the appellant no.1/Mahesh Kumar is in service at Betul, whereas the appellant no.2, 3 and 4 namely Smt. Rambai, Smt. Shail Kumar Choudhary are the resident of Village Pathrota, and Village Ghatali, Tehsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad (M.P) and the death certificate also demonstrates that the respondent- Ram Kishore and his wife Kusum Bai expired in the Village

Pathrota District Hoshangabad.

Looking to the inordinate delay period of 24 years in filing the aforesaid applications, explanation submitted by the appellants is not trustworthy, so inordinate delay cannot be condoned and I.As could not be allowed. Hence, the aforesaid I.As are dismissed. The appeal is abated against the deceased respondent no.2 Ram Kishore.

The case be listed for final hearing as per its turn and seniority.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE

tarun