9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for setting aside an abatement of an appeal due to a point of limitation. Analysis: The application before the court sought to set aside an abatement of an appeal pending in the High Court due to the death of a respondent. The applicants had initially prepared an application for the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent within the time limit, but due to the court not sitting on the last day of the deadline, the application was made on the next available court day. The respondent argued that the appeal had abated as per Order 22, Rule 4, Sub-rule (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates abatement if no application for substitution is made within the time limit. However, the applicants relied on precedents to support their contention that an application made on the next court day after the expiration of the time limit is considered within time. The respondent further contended that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of time in certain circumstances, did not apply to save the limitation in this case. The respondent cited a judgment by Panckridge J. to support this argument. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the practical utility of Section 4 in extending the period of limitation indirectly. The court highlighted that the operation of Section 4 should not be limited to specific cases and should be considered in conjunction with the time limit prescribed by relevant articles in the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the application made by the petitioners on the next court day after the time limit expired was within the time limited by law. Therefore, the abatement of the appeal was set aside, and the application for substitution of the legal representatives was deemed valid. The court allowed the application made by the petitioners on the subsequent court day and granted relief accordingly. The costs of the application were awarded to the respondents, irrespective of the appeal's outcome. In a concurring opinion, S.R. Das Gupta, J. agreed with the reasoning and decision of the Chief Justice. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the practical implications of limitation rules and the application of relevant legal provisions to ensure justice in cases involving abatement of appeals due to the death of a party.
|
