Ramjee Prasad & Ors vs Balku Oraon & Anr on 28 July, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ramjee Prasad & Ors vs Balku Oraon & Anr on 28 July, 2015

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                S.A. No. No.85 of 2000 (R)

     Ramjee Prasad & Ors.                     ......      Appellants

                            Versus
     Balku Oraon & Anr.                       ....      Respondents
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                            ---------
     For the Appellants : Mr. L. K. Lal, Advocate
     For the Respondents :
                            ---------

13/Dated: 28th July, 2015
I.A. No.2327 of 2011

          The Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.2327 of
     2011 has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Order
     XXII Rule 3 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with
     Section 5 of Limitation Act.
     2.   Mr.   Lalit   Kumar   Lal,    learned   counsel,   for   the
     appellants, has submitted that the appellant No.3, Kishori
     Sahu died on 24.09.2009 leaving behind his legal heirs/
     representatives, i.e., wife, two sons and three daughters, as
     mentioned at para - 2. It is submitted that appellants being
     rustic villagers were not aware of the procedural law that
     they had to file the substitution petition in the event of the
     death of the appellant No.3. That they came to Ranchi on
     28.07.2011

to enquire about the status and progress of the case and during discussion they informed the counsel regarding the death of appellant No.3. That on the advice of the counsel, they ascertained the date of death of appellant No.3 and the names of legal representatives and heirs whereafter he informed the counsel, who filed the present application resulting in the delay. That it was not deliberate negligence or laches on the part of the appellants rather the delay occurred due to the facts and circumstances as mentioned above and if the delay is not condoned the appellants shall suffer irreparable loss. It is also submitted that abatement, if any, be also set aside.

3. Considering the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is given for condoning the delay in preferring the substitution petition accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned.

- 02 -

4. Let the name of deceased appellant No.3 be deleted and legal heirs/ representatives, as mentioned at para - 2 of the substitution petition, be substituted in place of deceased appellant No.03. Abatement, if any, is set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants shall carry out necessary correction in the cause title of the appeal in red ink.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.2327 of 2011 stands allowed.

7. Learned counsel, for the appellants, has further submitted that he has filed the vakalatnama on behalf of the proposed legal heirs/ representatives of the deceased appellant No.3 accordingly, notice is waived.

S.A. No.85 of 2011

Office is directed to put up this case under the appropriate heading on 14.08.2015.

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court