9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether ignorance of the respondent's death constitutes "sufficient cause" for not filing an application to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time. 2. Whether the appellant has a duty to make regular inquiries about the respondent's health or existence. 3. Interpretation of the term "sufficient cause" under Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 4. Whether the court has inherent power to add legal representatives to do full justice. 5. Application of the Full Bench decision of the High Court to the facts of the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ignorance of Respondent's Death as Sufficient Cause: The appellant contended that mere ignorance of the respondent's death should be considered "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing the application to bring legal representatives on record. The court, however, held that mere ignorance is not sufficient. The appellant must provide reasons for not knowing about the death within a reasonable time and establish those reasons to the court's satisfaction. The court emphasized that the appellant must allege and establish facts that prevented timely action. 2. Duty to Make Regular Inquiries: The appellant argued that once the respondent is served in the first appeal, there is no duty to make regular inquiries about the respondent's health or existence. The court agreed that there is no such duty but clarified that the appellant's belated knowledge of the respondent's death does not automatically justify setting aside the abatement. The appellant must still prove that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay. 3. Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause": The court discussed the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under Order XXII, Rule 9 of the CPC. It stated that the term should not be construed liberally just because the party in default is the government or because the issue involves impleading legal representatives. The court must scrutinize the reasons provided for the delay and determine if they constitute "sufficient cause." The court noted that the legislature provided a three-month period for such applications, expecting that the plaintiff would learn of the death within this time. Additional time is allowed under Article 176 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the reasons for the delay must be justified. 4. Inherent Power to Add Legal Representatives: The appellant claimed that the court has inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC to add legal representatives to do full justice. The court rejected this argument, stating that inherent powers cannot be invoked to implead legal representatives if the suit has abated due to the appellant's failure to take timely steps. The court emphasized that the provisions of the CPC are designed to advance justice, and the appellant must satisfy the court that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay. 5. Application of Full Bench Decision: The appellant argued that the High Court misapplied the Full Bench decision in Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan v. Om Press Co. Ltd., which held that ignorance of the defendant's death is not a sufficient cause for setting aside abatement. The court did not find it necessary to consider whether the High Court applied the decision correctly, as the main issue was whether the appellant established "sufficient cause" for the delay. The court reiterated that the appellant must allege and prove reasons for not knowing about the death within a reasonable time. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish "sufficient cause" for not filing the application to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time. The court emphasized that the appellant's mere ignorance of the respondent's death is not sufficient and that the appellant must provide and prove reasons for the delay. The court also rejected the argument that it has inherent power to add legal representatives if the suit has abated due to the appellant's failure to take timely steps. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
