9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application u/s Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC for substitution of legal heirs. 2. Application u/s Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Summary: 1. Application u/s Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC for substitution of legal heirs: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and sought to substitute the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1, Smt. Bimla Devi, who passed away on 06.10.2003. The plaintiff claimed ignorance of her death until 13.11.2003. Despite the stipulated 90-day period for filing the application expiring, the plaintiff sought to implead the legal heirs, including Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, Ms. Preeti, and Ms. Anju, as defendants No. 1[a] to 1[c]. The plaintiff argued that the right to sue survives against these legal heirs as successors to the suit premises. 2. Application u/s Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay:The plaintiff attributed the delay in filing the application to the fault of the previous advocate, who neither informed about the death of defendant No. 1 nor pursued the matter diligently. The plaintiff contended that the delay was not deliberate and that sufficient cause existed due to the complex and peculiar facts of the case. The plaintiff emphasized that not setting aside the abatement would cause irreparable loss and harm, while allowing the applications would not prejudice the defendants. Defendants' Opposition:The defendants opposed both applications, arguing that they were filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and lacked sufficient explanation for the delay. They contended that the suit had already abated against defendant No. 1 and should be dismissed, which would also affect the suit against other defendants. Court's Analysis and Judgment:The court reviewed the applications, replies, and relevant judgments. It noted that in a similar case (C.S. [OS] No. 2243/1993), the delay in filing the application for substitution of legal heirs was condoned. The court cited the Supreme Court's liberal approach in condoning delays to advance substantial justice, as seen in cases like Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao and Nagina Singh v. Naga Singh. The court emphasized that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights but to ensure timely remedies. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff had made a specific prayer for setting aside the abatement in the main application and that an oral prayer for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is sufficient. The court held that the power to condone delay is not necessarily dependent on a formal application and can be exercised if sufficient cause is shown. Given the settled law and the fact that one of the legal heirs (defendant No. 8) was already a party to the proceedings, the court allowed the application for condonation of delay. The plaintiff was directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, and the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1 were brought on record. The amended memo of parties was taken on record, and the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings.
|
