9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to order rejecting petitions under Order 22, Rule-4, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary: The petitioners, plaintiffs in a suit, challenged the order rejecting their petitions for substitution, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay. The suit involved a claim for right, title, and interest in properties. The main issue arose from the death of Defendant No. 1 during the suit, leading to the rejection of the petitioners' application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased. Subsequent petitions filed by the petitioners were also rejected, prompting the challenge in the writ application. The petitioners argued that the trial court should have taken a liberal approach and not rejected their petitions, citing precedents emphasizing the importance of substantial justice. On the other hand, the Opp. parties contended that the delay in taking action after being informed of Defendant No. 1's death justified the trial court's decision. The judgment highlighted the need for a flexible and just approach in matters of delay, quoting the Supreme Court's stance on "sufficient cause" and the importance of serving the ends of justice. It criticized the tendency of trial courts to adopt a pedantic technical approach to delay issues, emphasizing the need to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. Ultimately, the High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petitions for substitution, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay. It directed the impleadment of the legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 and stressed the importance of a justice-oriented approach by trial courts in handling such matters to ensure the effective adjudication of disputes on merits. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed with no costs, emphasizing the overarching goal of seeking adjudication of disputes and the judiciary's role in removing injustice and upholding the ends of justice.
|
