SAVITRI DEVI Vs. R S BINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.Ms. 797, 878 and 879 of 1972.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, R.S. Bindra, husband of respondent No. 4, Ravindra Kaur Bindra, died on March 16, 1971 at Bhuj as the result of an accident. Respondents kept quite about the death and, on August 30, 1972 filed C.M. 797 of 1972 dated August 10, 1972 containing the intimation about his death and contending that the appeal had abated. It was further contended that the said abatement could not be set aside and, therefore, the acceptance of the appeal "if it so happens, would imply that there would be two inconsistent decrees; one decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and the other dismissing the suit against the heirs of Shri R.S. Bindra who represent him." Admittedly advance copy of this application was received on August 30, 1972 by Mr. Daya Krishan, Advocate, for the two appillant ladies who are stated to be Purdahnashin. Presumably, there was some defect in. this application which, according to the endorsement of the Deputy Registrar of this Court, was refiled on September 20, 1972.

(3.) In the mean time the appellants filed C.M. 787 of 1972 for bringing on record the nine legal representatives of R.S. Bindra, deceased respondent, which included his widow respondent No. 4 who is already on the record. In this application it was stated that information about the death of R.S. Bindra, respondent, came to the knowledge of the counsel for the appellants on August 30, 1972 when a copy of C.M. No. 797 of 1972 was served upon him, that the appellants came to know about such death only on September 8, 1972whenthey were contacted by their counsel, that thiereafter and with great difficulty the appellants ascertained the names and addresses of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent on September 13, 1972 and filed this application on September 14, 1972. It was contended that deceased respondent had never claimed any right, title or interest 'n the plot of land which was in controversy in the suit, that his widow, respondent No. 4, who was already on the record sufficiently represented his estate and that although it was not necessary to implead the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent by bringing them on the record, it was prayed that they be brought on the record in place of the deceased respondent to obviate and avoid all objections. This application was returned by the office of this Court on September 25, 1972 with two objections. The only material objection with which we are concerned was that the office of this Court required the appellants to file an application for condonation of delay. This application was presented again without any application for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellants' knowledge of death of the deceased respondent having come about on September 8, 1972 the application was within time. The office did not agree with this remark and returned the application to the appellants again on October 24, 1972 to be filed within a week and it was than that the appellants filed C.M. No. 879 of 1972 on November 3, 1972 for condonation of delay to obviate the objections of the office of this Court contending at the same time that such an application was not necessary. C.M. No. 878 of 1972 was also refiled on November 3, 1972 after the expiry of one week allowed by the office.