HARI CHAND Vs. PSP BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications have been filed consequent upon the death of Defendant No.2 on 17/12/2001. On 30/3/2001, this Court had ordered Dasti notice to the non-applicants through counsel, returnable on 16/7/2001. An application for amendment, which counsel for the parties state is yet to be disposed of, had been filed by the Plaintiff to implead, inter alia, the wife, and now widow of Defendant No.2. Although steps were taken for serving her, these steps remained futile. In the proceedings held on 8/3/2002, it was recorded that the summons issued to the wife of Defendant No.2 have been received back unserved with the Report that she was not found/living at the given address and the house was found locked. Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.D. Kapoor had observed that " though there is a presumption of service but as a matter of precaution let their service be effected by affixation and at the conspicuous place of the Court House". The relevance of mentioning these Orders is that the case was listed before the Court on several occasions between December, 2001 and July, 2002, and yet the Court was not informed of the death, even though the dispute remained active and notices were being sent to the widow of Defendant No.2 at the address available on the file. Had the matter been dormant, the failure to immediately inform the Court may have been viewed differently.

(2.) On 9/7/2002, the erstwhile counsel for Defendant No.2 informed the Court of the demise of Defendant No.2. On that date, he was directed as follows:

(3.) IA No.8572/02 was filed on 16/9/2000. It is relevant to record that the application is dated 14/8/2002 and has been filed thereafter quite obviously because the affidavit of Shri Hari Chand in support thereof was sworn only on 16/9/2000. This is also obvious from the over-writing in the affidavit. The prayer in this application is that the Court direct learned counsel for the Defendant to supply the names and addresses of the Legal Representatives(LRs) of the deceased Defendant No.2 and that the same may be permitted to be brought on record as Defendants. By this time, over two months had already elapsed, out of which one month had been lost solely because of the inactivity of Shri Hari Chand, the Plaintiff. By letter dated 18/10/2002, addressed to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff by learned counsel for Defendant No.1, he was informed of the details of the five LRs deceased-Defendant No.2.