Rajasthan High Court
Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Smt Shanti Devi Rawat on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 517/1998
Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd
----Appellant
Versus
Smt Shanti Devi Rawat (Died) through LRs
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Popli for
Mr. Sunil Nath
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh for
Ms. S. Kasliwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
31/03/2022
This second appeal has been filed by appellant-tenant
assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1996 passed by
Additional Civil Judge, Court No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in suit No.
19/1995, whereby suit for eviction in relation to rented shop on
the ground of bona fide and personal necessity, has been decreed,
which has been affirmed in first appeal No.7/1997 vide judgment
dated 03.09.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5,
Jaipur City, Jaipur.
During course of this second appeal, respondent-plaintiff-
landlord Smt. Shanti Devi Rawat passed away, therefore, her
natural heirs, two sons and two daughters, have been substituted
as respondents Nos.1/1 to 1/4. Thereafter, one of legal
representatives, respondent No.1/1 Sh. Manak Chand Rawat also
passed away on 17.06.2011.
(2 of 4) [CSA-517/1998]
Counsel for respondents, by way of an application under
Order 22 Rule 10(A) dated 10.10.2011 informed about the death
of respondent No. 1/1 i.e Sh. Manak Chand Rawat and about his
legal representatives, wife, son and one daughter.
Accordingly, the appellant-defendant has moved an
application dated 30.03.2012 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC seeking
substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent
No.1/1 Sh. Manak Chand Rawat as informed by the counsel for
respondents. Since there was some delay in moving the
application, two other applications for condonation of delay and
setting aside the abatement, if any, have also been filed.
This Court vide order dated 06.07.2012 issued notices of
application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC along with another
applications.
Notices have been served upon wife and son of deceased
respondent No.1/1 Sh. Manak Chand Rawat, however, notice of
application has not been served upon his daughter. The wife and
son namely Smt. Kusumlata and Mr. Sandeep Rawat (respondent
Nos.1/1/1 and 1/1/2) have appeared through advocate and filed
reply to all the three applications.
Having heard counsel for both parties on the applications for
substitution of legal representatives of respondent No. 1/1 Sh.
Manak Chand Rawat, this Court finds that delay seems to be
procedural and not deliberate. The right to sue survives upon the
natural heirs of deceased respondent No.1/1 Sh. Manak Chand
Rawat. The nature of dispute is eviction decree has already been
passed by two courts below in favour of respondents. It has also
been informed that respondents have initiated execution
(3 of 4) [CSA-517/1998]
proceedings, during pendency of this appeal due to some default
in making payment of mesne profit by appellant-tenant.
Thus, when respondents have initiated execution
proceedings, it is assumed that respondents decree holder have
instructions to appear on behalf of one of the daughters of
deceased respondent No.1/1 Sh. Manak Chand Rawat, whose
service of notice is awaited since 2012.
Having considered the nature of dispute and reasons
assigned in the application, this Court is of the view that
applications deserve to be allowed. Delay in filling the application
is condoned.
Legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1/1 Sh.
Manak Chand Rawat as mentioned in application are allowed be
substituted in his place. Amended cause title be filed within a
period of one week.
Since, out of legal representatives of deceased respondent
No.1/1, counsel has put in appearance on behalf of wife and son,
he undertakes to give his appearance on behalf of daughter
respondent No.1/1/3 also. Thus, service is complete.
Counsel for appellant submits that since respondents have
proceeded for execution of eviction decree due to some
delay/default in making payment of mesne profit, therefore, they
have moved an application for stay.
Counsel for respondents does not dispute about proceedings
for execution of eviction decree and has filed reply to the stay
application.
Since the second appeal itself has riped up for final hearing,
therefore, it is expected from counsel for both parties that they
shall come prepared for final arguments on appeal itself.
(4 of 4) [CSA-517/1998]
On joint request of both counsel, list this second appeal for
final hearing on 18.04.2022 with an understanding that counsel
for both parties shall not seek adjournment.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN SHARMA /77
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
