SATNAM SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are a number of applications before me which will be decided by this judgment. There was a second appeal, R. S. A. No. 22 of 1966, instituted by Satnam Singh and another versus Mohinder Singh and others, which was decided by me on 15th November, 1972. One of the respondents in that case was Shri Amar Nath son of Shri Nihal Chand. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants were represented by Mr. Anoop Singh, Advocate, and the respondents by Mr. N. .D. Bali, Advocate. The appeal was decided on the assumption that all the parties were alive and no mention was made that Shri Amar Nath, respondent No. 3, was dead. In fact, his Advocate did not bring this fact to the notice of the Court. The judgment, as I have mentioned above, was delivered on 15th November, 1972, and the appeal was accepted. On 80th January, 1973, three separate applications on behalf of the appellants were filed in this Court. They were Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 456 to 458 of 1973. In these applications, it was stated that Shri Amar Nath had died on 21st June, 1972 and the fact that he had died was not known to the appellants at the time the appeal was heard. It was also stated that the appellants had only discovered that Shri Amar Nath had died when they had gone to take steps to execute the sale-deed in their favour. I. may mention that the suit out of which the aforementioned appeal arose, was a suit for specific performance of a particular property situated in the Sabzi Mandi Area in Delhi. Thus, the case of the successful appellants before this Court, was that they discovered the death of respondent No. 8, on 26th 'January, 1973. It was explained in C. M. No. 456 of 1973, that the appellants had gone on 14th January, 1973, to the Lal Bagh Locality where Shri Amar Nath originally resided and learnt that he had shifted from there to a trans-Jamuna colony. Later they had learntis address from Sardar Pritam Singh Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51, and subsequently on 26th January, 1973, had learnt from Shrimati Sodhi that her husband, Shri Amar Nath had died on 21st June, 1972. The legal representatives of the deceased, Shri Amar Nath were mentioned in paragraph 8 of this application, In the end, it was prayed that the abatement should be set aside arid the other application for condoning the delay should also be considered. Along with this application, C. M. 457/73 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stating that on account of the reasons stated in the application just mentioned, for was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, The third application, C. M. No. 458 of 1978, was uuder Ordr 32, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that Shri Kul Bhushan son of Shri Amar Nath should be appointed as a Guardian-ad-litem of his minor sister Kumari Usha.

(2.) These three applications were placed before me for consideration and I was very doubtful as to the procedure that was to be adopted in a case like the present in view of the fact that the appeal had already been decided.

(3.) Subsequently, the appellant again filed two more applications, which have been numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 1422 and 1423 of 1973. The former application is also under Order 22, Rules 2 and 4 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the proceedings so far in the appeal should be set aside and the appeal should be re-heard after impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3. The other application was concerned with the appointment of Shri Kul Bhushan as Guardian-ad-litem of the minor Kumari Usha. This application was, more or less, the same as C. M. No. 458 of 1973.