1975 (9) TMI 189 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for setting aside the abatement of the appeal.
2. Determination of "sufficient cause" for delay in filing the application.
3. Allegations of culpable negligence or mala fides by the petitioner.
4. Legal principles regarding abatement and limitation periods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Setting Aside the Abatement of the Appeal:
The petitioner-appellant, Corporation of Calcutta, filed an application under Order 22, Rule 9 read with Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the abatement of the appeal. The respondent, Murari Churn Law, died on January 25, 1973, and no substitution application was made within three months, causing the appeal to abate. The petitioner filed the present application on May 23, 1974, beyond the prescribed period.

2. Determination of "Sufficient Cause" for Delay in Filing the Application:
The petitioner's counsel argued that "sufficient cause" prevented the timely application, citing the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Ram Charan. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the respondent's death until May 20, 1974, and promptly filed the application within 24 hours of confirmation. The respondent's counsel countered that mere ignorance of death does not constitute "sufficient cause" and emphasized the respondent's public stature and the publication of his death in newspapers.

3. Allegations of Culpable Negligence or Mala Fides by the Petitioner:
The Court examined whether the petitioner exhibited culpable negligence or mala fides. The Court noted that the petitioner acted promptly upon learning of the death and that the delay was not due to negligence. The respondent's solicitor did not inform the petitioner of the death, contributing to the delay. The Court found no evidence of mala fide action by the petitioner.

4. Legal Principles Regarding Abatement and Limitation Periods:
The Court referred to the principles laid down in Union of India v. Ram Charan, emphasizing that the Court has discretion to set aside abatement if "sufficient cause" is shown. The Court must scrutinize the reasons for delay and ensure they are satisfactory. The Court noted that the petitioner was not required to make regular inquiries about the respondent's health or existence. The Court found that the petitioner's immediate action upon learning of the death and the absence of prior knowledge constituted "sufficient cause."

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the petitioner demonstrated "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing the application. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner acted without negligence or mala fides. Consequently, the Court ordered the abatement to be set aside and allowed the prayers in the petition. The petitioner was directed to pay the costs of the application to the respondent. The judgment was certified for two counsel and agreed upon by the judges involved.