Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mansha Ram & Ors vs . Brij Lal & Ors. on 23 August, 2022
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
.
Mansha Ram & ors vs. Brij Lal & Ors.
RSA No.555/2010 23.8.2022 Present: Mr. Vedant Ranta, Advocate vice counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 7.
CMP (M) No.741/2022 The present application, under Order 22, Rules 3, 9 and 11 read with section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been maintained by the applicants. As per the applicants, appellant No.1-Mansa Ram has expired on 26.11.2013 and left behind the legal representatives, as mentioned in para-2 of the application. However, the delay in filing the application has occurred, as it took considerable time to collect the necessary documents. So, the delay is neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicants, as such, the same deserves to be condoned. The application is duly supported with an affidavit, as well as the death certificate of the deceased.
No reply to the application has been filed. Heard. As the delay was beyond the control of the applicants and has been sufficiently explained, the delay in filing the application is condoned.
As cause to sue still persists in favour of the legal representatives of appellant No.1, the instant application is allowed and legal representatives as mentioned in para-2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record, after setting aside the abatement, if any.
Application stands disposed of.
CMP (M) No.742/2022 The present application, under Order 22, Rules 4, 9 and 11 read with section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2022 20:07:02 :::CIS .
:: 2 :: RSA No.555/2010 Act, has been maintained by the applicants. As per the applicants, respondent No.7 has expired on 25.12.2020 and left behind the legal representatives, as mentioned in para-2 of the application. However, the delay in filing the application has occurred, as it took considerable time to collect the necessary documents. So, the delay is neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicants, as such, the same deserves to be condoned. The application is duly supported with an affidavit, as well as the death certificate of the deceased.
No reply to the application has been filed. Heard. As the delay was beyond the control of the applicants and has been sufficiently explained, the delay in filing the application is condoned.
As cause to sue still persists in favour of the legal representatives of respondent No.7, the instant application is allowed and legal representatives as mentioned in para-2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record, after setting aside the abatement, if any.
Application stands disposed of.
CMP No.7472/2022 The present application, under Order 22 Rule 2 read with section 151 CPC has been maintained by the applicant for deleting the name of appellant No.2-Smt. Kaulan Devi. As per the applicant, appellant No.2 has expired on 03.12.2013 and their legal heirs are already on record in the instant appeal and have been arrayed as appellants No.3 and 4 and they continue to represent the estate of deceased. The right to sue continues to survive in favour of the applicants and against the respondents. The application is ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2022 20:07:02 :::CIS .
duly supported with an affidavit.
No reply to the application has been filed. Heard. Taking into consideration the fact that appellant No.2 has died on 03.12.2013 and her estate is being represented by appellants No.3 and 4. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to just exception and name of appellant No.2, is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. The Registry is to reflect this order in the cause title of the appeal in red ink. The application stands disposed of.
RSA No.555/2010
As prayed for, list for hearing in the month of November, 2022.
( Chander Bhusan
Barowalia )
Judge
23rd August, 2022
(CS)
::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2022 20:07:02 :::CIS