9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Zoheb Hussain, S.P.P. Shri Kanishk, Advocate. ORDER 1. The application has been filed to bring legal heirs of the deceased Appellant on record. The objection to the application has been raised by the Respondent in reference to the delay in filing of the application. It is submitted that delay in filing application is of 122 days in Appeal No. 229/2011 while in Appeal No. 221/2011, 227/2011 it is almost of nine years and five years respectively. In the Appeal No. 226/2011 & 44/2010 delay is of four years and seven years respectively. It is submitted by efflux of time, the Appeal abated and no application for Condonation of Delay has been filed. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appeal remained pending before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontinue the Appeal in place of a person died during the pendency of the Appeal. The Respondent have not raised an argument that the legal representatives cannot continue the Appeal or the proceedings rather objection is on the delay in submission of application. 5. Section 72 of the Act of 2002 does not provide limitation and this Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure where order 22 provides for substitution of deceased with legal heirs and if it is read with Article 120 of Limitation Act, it provides limitation of three months from the date of death. The application in these Appeal have been preferred beyond the period of 90 days. 6. The question for our consideration would be about the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the right to pursue remedy even after death of the respondent survives. After the death of the respondent it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner or the appellant to substitute the heirs of such respondent within a reasonable time. For pupose of holding as to what shall be a reasonable time, the High Court may take note of the period prescribed of holding Article 120 of the Limitation Act for substituting the heirs of the deceased defendant or the respondent. However, there is no question of automatic abatement of the writ proceedings. Even if an application is filed beyond 90 days of the death of such respondent, the Court can take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case for purpose of condoning the dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of CPC but general principles of law are required to be applied by the Courts and the Tribunal. 9. We may further make reference of the judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 1519 to hold that limitation provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act would apply to the Writ Proceedings. The CPC as such may exclude its application for those proceedings but general principle of law are to be applied to keep the litigation alive. The substitution of deceased is required within reasonable time. 10. Similar view was taken by Allahabad High Court in the case reported in 196029/AHD 535. The other High Courts have also applied the same principle though CPC may not be strictly applicable on Writ proceedings. In these Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
