9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btor about the LRs of the deceased of R1 but when he could not find the same, filed the application i.e. I.A. No. 2693 of 2021 on 29.11.2021. The said application was ultimately decided on 24.08.2022 by this Tribunal and the information was given by Counsel for Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant on 08.09.2022 and thereafter, the application was filed on 12.09.2022. In the integrum, because of order of the Hon ble Apex Court, in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [ 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER ] the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded with further grace period of 90 days. In that manner, the limitation provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 became non-operative and can be stated to have again started from 28.05.2022 but during this period application i.e. I.A. No. 2693 of 2021 filed by the Appellant on 29.11.2021 for seeking the details of the LRs of Respondent No. 1 was pending which ultimately decided on 24.08.2022 without there being any fault on the part of the Appellant and as soon as when the particulars were provided by Counsel for Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant on 08.09.2022 through email the necessary application i.e. I.A. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter is listed for directions. Nobody gave appearance on behalf of the Appellant. It is informed that the Respondent No. 1 has been passed away. The Appellant is directed to file appropriate application in this regard. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 submits that he has filed an application I.A. No. 2937 of 2020. Such Application will be considered on next date. Parties are directed to comply the office notice dated 27th May, 2021 and 06th July, 2021. Let the matter be fixed for hearing and for orders on I.A. No. 2937 of 2020 on 31st August, 2021. 3. On 01.09.2021, the following order was recorded:- Today the matter is listed to settle the date. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that he will file appropriate application as the Respondent No. 1 had passed away. He is directed to do so within two weeks. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent is directed to file the death certificate of R-1 within a week and provide copy to the Appellant s Counsel. Let the mater be listed for Hearing on 15th November, 2021 on top of the list. 4. Thereafter on 15.11.2021, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant made a request before this Tribunal that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and at that time Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Adv. accepted notice on behalf of the proposed LRs and requested for time to file reply as according to her wife of the deceased Respondent No. 1 was not required to be impleaded as a party. The order in I.A. No. 3437 of 2022 passed on 20.09.2022, read as under:- This application is filed by the Appellant to bring on record legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 1 who are mentioned in Para 2(b) of the application. Notice in the application. At this stage, Mr. Varsha Banerjee, accepts notice on behalf of the proposed LRs i.e. Ms. Kiran Khattar wife of Jagdish Khattar, Mr. Gautam Khattar, (son) and Mr. Kunal Khattar (Son). She prays for an adjournment to file Reply to the application as according to her wife of the deceased Jagdish Khattar is not required to be impleaded as a party. Adjourned to 10th October, 2022. 7. Thereafter, an issue was raised by Respondent No. 1 that the application for impleadment has not been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, an order was passed on 10.10.2022 as follows:- The issue involved in this case is about impleadme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.04.2021 and thereafter, another Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 was filed in the same matter which was decided on 10.01.2022. The relevant observations of the Hon ble Apex Court are reproduced as under: 3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID-19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2022 for condonation of delay in which the following order was passed on 01.12.2022: This Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for seeking condonation of delay of 427 days in impleading the legal representatives of Respondent No.1 in terms of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Issued notice in the Application. At this stage Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Counsel for Non-applicant accepts notice and prays for a short accommodation to file Reply of the Application. On her request, adjourned to 15th December, 2022. 10. After the reply was filed by the Respondent to the application i.e. I.A. No. 4401 of 2022 the arguments have been heard on both the applications i.e. I.A. No. 4401 of 2022 and 3473 of 2022. 11. The application i.e. I.A. No. 4401 of 2022 is filed for seeking condonation of delay of 427 days in filing of the application seeking impleadment of LRs of deceased Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that there is no delay in filing of the Application but in order to avoid any kind of technicalities and as an abundant precaution, the present application has been moved. 12. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities. This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction. Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks. 13. Thereafter, an order was passed on 08.03.2021, containing the following directions: - 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements. Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA) has now through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing order was passed: - 1. In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. 3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID-19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. 16. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in view of the order passed in M.A. No. 21 of 2022 by the Hon ble Apex Court, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any special law or general law in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It has also been held that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining w.e.f 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. It is thus submitted that the limitation was extended up to 28.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in regard to the application for condonation of delay. 19. There is no dispute to the facts that Respondent No. 1 had expired on 26.04.2021. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 brought it to the notice to this Tribunal as well as the Appellant on 12.07.2021. The Application i.e. I.A. No. 2693 of 2021 was filed on 29.11.2021. The said application was decided on 24.08.2022 and in compliance of the order passed in the said application particulars of the LRs of Respondent No. 1 were provided by Counsel for Respondent No. 1 vide email dated 08.09.2022 and the application was filed for impleadment by the Appellant on 12.09.2022. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the period of limitation for the purpose of bringing the LRs of the deceased plaintiff or defendant on record in terms of the provision of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Article 120 is reproduced as under:- 120. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to have the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party Ninety days The date of death of the plaintiff, appellant, defendant or respondent, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely decided on 24.08.2022 without there being any fault on the part of the Appellant and as soon as when the particulars were provided by Counsel for Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant on 08.09.2022 through email the necessary application i.e. I.A. No. 3473 of 2022 was filed within four days. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any delay in filing of the application and as Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Application for condonation of delay has been filed with abundant caution, in case there is any delay, the Appellant has been successful in providing the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Ultimately result is that the application is allowed. 23. Now, we will deal with the application i.e. I.A. No. 3473 of 2022 which has been filed by the Appellant for bringing on record LRs of Respondent No. 1. It is urged in the application that Respondent No. 1, died on 26.04.2021, has left behind three legal heirs which are as under;- i. Ms. Kiran Khattar (Wife) R/o E-16, Sector 40, Noida, U.P. 201301 ii. Mr. Gautam Khattar (Son) R/o E-16, Sector 40, Noida, U.P.- 201310 iii. Mr. Kunal Khattar (Son) R/o 3/16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
