Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Col. A.G. Rang Raj vs . M/S Density & Ors. on 6 August, 2014

        IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH, LD. ADJ­15 
                 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI. 

CS No. 143/14/07

06.08.2014

Col. A.G. Rang Raj             Vs.  M/s Density & Ors.

ORDER

1. This is to adjudicate upon the three pending applications i.e. application u/o22 rule 3 read with section 151 CPC, application for setting aside the abatement of the suit, and application u/s5 Limitation Act, filed as on 11.08.2009 by the applicant Sh. V.S. Venugopal. In the applications in hand it is prayed that 'the applicant be permitted to continue and prosecute the suit as one of the executor of the will dtd. 07.01.2009; the applicant be substituted in place of deceased plaintiff; and that the delay be condoned'.

2. File perused. Ld. Counsels; for applicant and the defendants, heard. On the basis of the material on record all the three applications CS no.143/14 /07 Col. A. G. Rangrajan v. M/s Density Page no.1 of 4 deserve dismissal. The following are the findings in this regard:­ i. The plaintiff Sh. A.G. Rang Raj, passed away as on 23.03.2009. However, the applications under adjudication could only be moved as on 11.08.2009, and not within the stipulated period of 90 days for bringing on record the Lrs of the deceased plaintiff; that too without any sort of justifiable or plausible reasons towards explaining the delay so caused. The applicant has entirely failed to satisfy the court by showing any 'sufficient cause' within the meaning u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

ii. In the applications u/o 22 rule 3 CPC; and for setting aside the abatement of the suit, the entire naration (of the facts/reasons) including the prayers made therein, is/are beyond comprehension. To be more precise, para 3 of the application u/o22 rule 3 CPC is being reproduced here under­ "The power of Attorney Holder being the plaintiff is already on record is pursuing this suit as he signed the plaint. He being already on record is pursuing this suit and there is no necessity to amend the plaint or the cause title of the suit".

CS no.143/14 /07 Col. A. G. Rangrajan v. M/s Density Page no.2 of 4

3. In the afore quoted provision, the language used is quite jargon and leads no where. The same is the fate of the rest of the averments including the prayer clause.

(i) On the one hand an application u/o 22 rule 3 CPC has been filed alongwith application u/s 5 Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay whereas on the other hand and simultaneously the application seeking setting aside of the abatement of the suit has also been filed.

The later application is supposed to be an application u/o 22 rule 9 CPC. In a given eventuality either there could be scope of filing application u/o 22 rule 3 CPC, or (in case of abatement of the suit;) the application u/o 22 rule 9 CPC. Under no eventuality simultaneous applications under both these provisions could be envisaged by any stretch of imagination.

(ii) Lastly and most importantly, all the three applications are drafted in such a vague, ambiguous and clandestine manner that the applicant didn't even deem it fit to mention as to whether the deceased plaintiff CS no.143/14 /07 Col. A. G. Rangrajan v. M/s Density Page no.3 of 4 was or was not survived by any Lrs. The application u/s 5 Limitation Act, reveals in its para 3 that the applicant is the brother­in­law of the deceased defendant. During the course of arguments on these applications, it was duly admitted that at least the wife/widow of the deceased plaintiff is/was alive and had survived the deceased husband i.e. the plaintiff. It remains unexplained throughout as to why the application for impleadment u/o 22 rule 3 CPC, was not filed for bringing on record the widow of the deceased as his LR.

4. On the basis of the findings given herein above all the three applications are hereby disposed off as dismissed. The suit has already abated. Let the case file be consigned to record room. 

Pronounced in the open Court                               (Raghubir Singh)
on 06th of August, 2014                               ADJ ­ 15 (Central)/06.08.2014
(Total pages 4)




CS no.143/14 /07                  Col. A. G. Rangrajan v. M/s Density            Page no.4 of 4