TEJ KAUR Vs. APPELLATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is a good example of law's delay. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed on 13th January, 1969 by Smt. Tej Kaur. She impleaded the following respondents to the petition : (1) Appellate Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951; (2) Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.); (3) Custodian of Evacuee Property for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.); (4) Sulakhan Singh. On behalf of respondents I to 3 a reply was received from the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 21st March, 1969 that the department was not interested in contesting the case. So no one appeared on their behalf at the hearing. Sulakhan Singh was served. He appointed a counsel. The case was heard by Sachar, J. on September 18, 1978. At the hearing no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Even counsel of Sulakhan Singh did not appear. The learned judge heard Mr. P. N. Talwar, on behalf of the petitioner Tej Kaur. He immediately pronounced the Order. He allowed the petition and remitted the case to the competent officer. This was his Order on September 18, 1978.

(2.) Nothing happened for three years. Now the heirs of Salakhan Singh have made an application for setting aside the order of Sachar, J. on the ground that their father had died in April, 1978, that is 5 months before the hearing before Sachar, J. The death of Sulakhan Singh in April, 1978 is not disputed. Tej Kaur must have known about his death. Tej Kaur is the wife of Sulakhan Singh's brother. Tej Kaur's husband is Makhan Singh. Sulakhan Singh was his real brother. Anyhow the fact remains that on the date of hearing Sulakhan Singh was dead. There is some controversy whether the advocate of Sulakhan Singh was dead or alive on the date of heaiing. It is admitted that he has died. Whether he was alive in September, 1978 we do not know. The crucial fact is that Sulakhan Singh had died before the case was heard. If Sulakhan Singh was the contesting respondent, as he was, any judgment given without making his legal representatives parties must be vacated on the short ground that the judgment is a nullity. The. contesting party was dead on the date of the hearing. So on this ground I set aside the order of Sachar, J. dated September 18, 1978.

(3.) Now Tej Kaur has impleaded the heirs of Sulakhan Singh in place of the deceased. They are his widow, three sons and two daughters. Mr. Jagdeep Kishore appears on behalf of them all. Two of the heirs are minors. They are Onkar Singh and Jaswant Singh. An application under Order 32 Rule 7. Civil Procedure Code. has been made by their elder brother Gurcharan Singh for appointment as their guardian. He has no interest adverse to that of the minors. Tej Kaur does not oppose this application. I, therefore, allow the application and appoint Gurcharan Singh as the guardian ad item of the minors Onkar Singh and Jaswant Singh,