(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) It appears that the High Court was wrongly led into thinking that Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code would squarely apply in the matter and hence a Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to consider whether there was sufficient cause for the long delay in making an application under the above Rule for substitution of the legal representatives of a deceased party. The Division Bench found that there was no proper explanation for the long delay and hence rejected the application as though it is one for impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased party. Consequently the appeal filed by the State in challenge of an award passed by a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act stood rejected as barred by limitation.
(3.) The second Additional Sub-Court, Trivandrum passed the award in the aforesaid land acquisition matter on a reference being made under section 18 of the Act. The date of the said award of the Reference Court is 12.11.1991. It appears that the Reference Court enhanced land value from Rs. 1,05,377. 00 to nearly rupees 17 lakhs. The State of Kerala filed an appeal before the High Court on 20. 06.1992 without noticing that the sole respondent in the award had died before filing the said appeal (legal representatives of the said sole respondent are the respondents in this appeal). On 22.5.1993 an application was filed before the High Court quoting Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for joining the name of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. In the affidavit sworn to by an Upper Division Clerk, Collectorate, Trivandrum in support of the said application, it was stated that the Government came to know of the death of the sole respondent only when the notice issued by the High Court on the appeal was returned unreserved stating that he was no more.