Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Kunhi Lekshmi Alias Leela Amma And Ors. vs Mrs. R. Rugmani Alias Subhadra Amma And ... on 4 March, 1959
Learned counsel submitted that a reading of the judgment in Leela
Radhakrishnan & Others v. Gowrykutty Amma and Others
(supra) will show that it was on the ground that no objection had been
taken to the impleadment of the legal heirs of the tenant after
condoning the delay in filing such an application, that such a view was
taken and that the said decision does not lay down the proposition that
R.C.R.No.201 of 2015 -11-
an application to set aside abatement is not required to be filed in
cases where an application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased
tenant or landlord is not filed within the period of 30 days stipulated in
Rule 10 of the rules.
T.V.Sadasivan vs Rajendran on 6 January, 2005
In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court
in Sadasivan Chettiar v. Rajendran (supra), we are of the opinion
that on the facts of this case, no exception can be taken to the said
order. It was consequent on the dismissal of I.A.No.55 of 2015 that
R.C.A.No.13 of 2013 was dismissed as abated. No exception can
therefore be taken to the said order as well. Having regard to the
admitted facts and the inferences that flow therefrom, no conclusion
other than the one arrived at by the rent control appellate authority
was possible in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 121 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Ram Charan & Others on 30 April, 1963
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the
period of limitation prescribed for filing an application to implead the
legal representatives of the deceased respondent in R.C.A.No.13 of
2013 is 30 days from the date of death of the respondent viz; 30 days
from 31.8.2013, on the failure of the appellants in the appeal to file
such an application, by operation of law viz; Order XXII Rule 4(3) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal before the rent control
appellate authority abated and that no order of court in that regard
was necessary. Learned counsel further submitted that once the
appeal abates, the remedy of the appellants is to have the abatement
set aside by recourse to Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure and if an application to set aside the abatement is not filed
within the period of 60 days from the date of abatement, as stipulated
in Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there occurs delay in filing
such an application and in that event, an application under section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the application
to set aside abatement will also have to be filed. Learned counsel
submitted that when a case has abated for non-impleadment of the
legal representatives in time, the court has no inherent power to
implead the legal representatives. Learned counsel also invited our
attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ram
Charan AIR 1964 (SC) 215 in support of the aforesaid proposition.
Section 22 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
1