Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[b] The facts involved in the case between Banwari Lal (D) By Lrs and Anr. v. Balbir Singh [AIR 2015 SC 3573] are recapitulated and summarized by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.2 to 6 of the decision. It is observed and held that :-

"2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the second appeal being RSA No.100 of 2008 as abated and also the interlocutory applications being CM Nos. 6342/2008, 11811- 11813/2009 and 1998/2012 to bring on record the legal representatives of the appellants herein.
(ii). Second appellant-Swaraj also died on 02.12.2008 and an order was passed on 06.08.2009 that the second appeal abated qua the second appellant as no steps were taken to bring on record his legal Page 26 C/CA/305/2019 JUDGMENT representatives.

6. Second appellant-Swaraj died on 02.12.2008. CM Nos.7034 of 2009 (under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC) and 7035 of 2009 (under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC) in RSA No.100/2008 were filed to set aside the abatement against appellant No.2 and also to bring on record the legal representatives of the second appellant. Since application for condonation of delay in filing the applications was not filed, those applications were withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. Since fresh applications were not filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the second appellant, the second appeal was dismissed qua the second appellant by order dated 06.08.2009. It is clear from the combined reading of Order XXII, Rules 3, 4 and 11, CPC that the doctrine of abatement is applicable equally to a suit as well as to an appeal. It is seen from the records that fresh applications viz. 11811/2009 (for condonation of delay), 11812/2009 (under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC) and 11813/2009 (under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC) were filed to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the second appellant- Swaraj. As noticed earlier, second appeal being RSA No.100/2008 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.08.2010. By order dated 02.02.2012, the second appeal was restored to file on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

"....In view of the reasoning given, the order dated 02.08.2010 is recalled subject to costs of Rs.5000/-. The application stands disposed of.
.....
RSA 100/2008 and CM 6342/2008 (for stay), 11811/2009 (for delay), 11812/2009 (u/O 22, R 9, CPC) and 11813/2009 (u/O 22, R 3, CPC) .....

Since the appeal has been revived, the interim order dated 01.05.2008 also stands revived."

It appears, even though second appeal was restored, no specific order was passed to restore the application CM Nos.11811/2009, 11812/2009 and 11813/2009."

(ii). CM No.1998/2012 filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC is Page 27 C/CA/305/2019 JUDGMENT treated as an application under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC. The legal representatives of late Banwari Lal viz., (i) Shakuntala (ii) Gaurav (iii) Rachna and (iv) Manju are ordered to be brought on record and the application is allowed.
(iii). RSA No.100/2008 on the file of the High Court is ordered to be restored. Memorandum of second appeal be suitably amended and amended memo of appeal shall be filed before the High Court within four weeks. The High Court shall afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to both parties and shall dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible."