SUMAN KHANNA Vs. BHARAT HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revisions are directed against the order of the learned trial court dated 28.7.97 by which an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the plaintiff praying for substitution of the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff No.2 Manohar Lal has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts leading to the present revisions are that the petitioner and her father Manohar Lal have filed suits for recovery against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 Manohar Lal died at Delhi on 3.10.94, but no application for substitution of his legal representatives was moved within a period of 90 days. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed'on behalf of the plaintiff No.1 on 17.7.1996 stating therein that the deceased Manohar Lal had left behind only two daughters namely Smt.Suman Khanna plaintiff No.1 and Ms. Manish Sahai and since. Suman Khanna was already on record, Smt. Manish Sahai be allowed to be, substituted in place of plaintiff No.2 as his legal heir. It was further stated that the application could not be filed as the plaintiff was under the bonafide impression and belief that her earlier counsel Shri B.B. Saxena had moved such an application. However, once the true position came to the notice of the newly engaged counsel Shri S.K. Bhaduri, he took immediate steps for filing of the said applications. The applications were oppossed on behalf of the defendant mainly on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in as much as Shri S.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the plaintiff was representing the plaintiff in other suits, where substitution applications were duly filed. The learned trial court on a consideration of the matter, dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to explain each day's delay from 17.5.96 when the true facts are stated to have came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and upto. 17.6.1997 the date of filing the application and consequently the delay could not be condoned.

(3.) Notice of the revision petitions were issued to the respondent and thereafter representation was also made on some dates of hearing, but subsequently the respondent remained unrepresented. Accordingly, I have heard Shri S.K. Bhaduri, learned counsel for: the revision petitioner and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made.