UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this appeal, by special leave, against the orders of the High Court of Punjab are these : Ram Charan obtained a decree for money against the Union of India on January 6,1955. The Union of India presented an appeal on April 6, 1955, in the High Court. Ram Charan, the sole respondent, filed a cross-objection on July 31, 1955. On February 6, 1956 the High Court passed an order in connection with the surety bond. Ram Charan was represented at the proceedings. Ram Charan died on July 21, 1957.

(2.) On March 18, 1958 an application was presented to the High Court on behalf of the appellant under O. XXII R. 4, read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, starting that Ram Charan died on July 21, 1957 that the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ambala Cantonment, learnt of his death on February 3, 1958, and that the deceased had left as his legal representatives, an adopted son and a widow. It was prayed that these legal representatives be brought on record in the place of the deceased respondent. The affidavit field in support of this application did not convey any further information and it was solemnly affirmed by the deponent that the averments in the affidavit were true to his belief. The deponent was no other than the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ambala, Cantonment.

(3.) On May 13, 1958, the widow of Ram Charan applied that she alone was the legal representative of Ram Charan under a will and that the alleged adopted son was not the legal representative. The appellant's application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Charan came up for hearing on May 14, 1958. The Court ordered the application to be heard at the time of the hearing of the appeal as it was pointed out that there was a difference of opinion in the Court as to whether limitation under O. XXII of the Code started from the date of death or from the date of knowledge of death. Subsequently, on an application on behalf of the legal representatives, it was ordered that the question of abatement be decided first and thereafter the printing of the record be taken on hand. The application for substitution came up for decision on February 16, 1960. It was dismissed, the Court holding that the Union of India had failed to show that it was prevented from any sufficient cause from continuing the appeal. On February 26, 1960, the appeal itself was dismissed as having abated.