Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Bhubaneswari Bewa And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 4 December, 1978 cites

Union Of India vs Ram Charan & Others on 30 April, 1963

11. The mere allegation that the opposite parties did not come to know of the death of the deceased respondent prior to the intimation of death furnished by the other side cannot constitute a sufficient cause for the setting aside of abatement. They have to prove further that they were diligent and viligant regarding the lis. The abatement of the appeal would be a prima facie evidence of their negligence and/or lack of vigilance. Hence they have to satisfy the court by stating and establishing facts which prevented them from knowing about the death earlier. They had to state reasons which, according to them, led to their not knowing of the death of the deceased respondent within a reasonable time and to establish those reasons to the satisfaction of the Court. This view gains support from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215. In that case the Union of India preferred an appeal on 6th of April, 1955. The respondent Ram Charan died on 21st of July, 1957. On 18th March, 1958 an application was made by the appellant to the High Court under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 C. P. C. stating that Ram Charan died on 21st July, 1957 and the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ambala Cantonment came to know about the death on 3rd Feb., 1958. The application for substitution was opposed and was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the Union of India had failed to show that it was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the appeal. That order was maintained by the Supreme Court on appeal. It is pertinent to quote the observations of their Lordships which are as follows (at p. 219) :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 216 - R Dayal - Full Document

Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan And Ors. vs Om Press Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 24 December, 1959

In the case of Dittu Ram Eyedan Firm v. Om Press Co. Ltd. AIR 1960 Punj 3.35 a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court observed that before ignorance of death can be deemed to be a good ground, there must exist good grounds for ignorance not attributable to negligence. When law imposes an obligation on a person to bring the legal representatives of deceased opponent on the record within the prescribed period, mere want of knowledge of death will be insufficient to secure him against consequences of abatement of his suit or appeal; he has further to show absence of want of care. When reasonable vigilance is a duty, unqualified ignorance cannot be deemed venial. Want bf information may be overlooked if want was not induced by neglectful indifference or blameworthy remissness. Allowing oneself to remain in the dark cannot be treated as persuasive ground for condonation of delay.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1