Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Pratap Singh Thakur vs Beni Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 2 December, 2013
Writ Petition No.20224/13
2.12.2013
Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, learned P.L. for the State/respondent no.9.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner/defendant no.2 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure-P-7) passed by Civil Judge Class-I Panna, in Civil Original Suit No.09/12 whereby, allowing the application of the respondents no.1 to 7 the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff-Paramlal, filed under Order 22 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC., along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning the delay and permitted them to substitute their name as legal representatives of the deceased, sole plaintiff on record.
Having heard the counsel, on perusing the record, I have found that the sole plaintiff, the predecessor in title of the respondents no.1 to 7, died on dated 22.2.2013, and thereafter, the abovementioned applications were filed by the respondents no.1 to 7 as his legal representatives to substitute their name on record on 21.6.2013.
I would like to mention here that while considering the question of admission of this petition, this Court has to keep in mind that since 19.5.2013 to 16.6.2013, on account of Summer Vacation, the Civil Court was closed and the period 90 days to file such application under Order 22 Rules 1 & 3 of CPC., was expired on 21.5.2013, during vacation. So in such premises, such application could have been filed by the petitioner on 17.6.2013, but the same has been filed on 21.6.2013. So such aspect is also required to consideration the matter.
As per averments of the abovementioned applications, the deceased was sole plaintiff in the matter and pendency of suit was not in the knowledge of the respondents no.1 to 7 and on acquisition of the knowledge of the suit, they have come and filed the above-mentioned application to substitute their name with a prayer for condoning the delay also. So in such premises such explanation is apparently acceptable and in such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the aforesaid both the applications.
Apart the aforesaid, it is apparent fact that the respondents no.1 to 7 being resident of village are uneducated/illiterate persons, did not aware about the technicalities of the law so in such premises also in the light of the dictum of the apex Court in the matter of Ram Sumiran and others vs. D.D.C. and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 606, their applications have been rightly allowed by the trial Court. In such premises, it is held that the trial Court has not committed any error in setting aside the abatement and permit the respondents no.1 to 7 to substitute their name on record at the place of plaintiff.
In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in the order impugned. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge Pb