PRITHVIRAJ ANNASAHEB PATIL Vs. ANNASAHEB NARAYANARAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTERIM APPLICATIONS XVIII, XIX AND XX The facts in brief are that respondent No. 45 Mohammad Harun Haji I brahim Shaith had died on 10th October, 1991. The application for substitution of the names of heirs of respondent No. 45 had not been filed within the time prescribed and as such by operation of law the appeal automatically abated against respondent No. 45. The appellant has moved this application for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased respondent No. 45, on October 14, 1993, along with the application for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is LA. XVIII, while application for setting aside abatement is LA. XIX and application for substitution is LA. XX, but, the cause for moving the application for substitution or for moving the application for setting aside abatement dated 4-9-1993 has been stated to be that the appellant-applicant, according to the averments made in the affidavit for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement, has Deen and is a resident of District Belgaum, while the deceased respondent had been residing at Bangalore and had died at Bangalore in October, 1991. There is no dispute among the parties that there is a distance of about 500 kilometres in between Bangalore and Belgaum. It also appears that Counsel had been appearing for respondent No. 45 prior to his death. But the fact of death of respondent No. 45 had not been brought to the notice of the Court earlier by the Counsel appearing on his behalf. Looking into the scheme of Order 22, Rule 10-A which provides and casts a duty on the Counsel appearing for the party to bring to the notice of the Court, the factum of death of that party during the pendency of the case. Order 22, Rule 10-A provides and reads as under: