KISHORI LAL KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. HANS RAJ FIALOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this revision petition have assailed the order dated 12.10.1995, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, allowing the applications filed by Sh. Vinod Kumar, legal representative and son of the deceased plaintiff, under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, and under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order allowed the submission of the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar in place of the deceased plaintiff and set aside the abatement.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case may be noticed :

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge accepted the explanation of the legal representative on behalf of the deceased plaintiff leaving regard to the fact that the suit was at an initial stage being then for service of the defendants, which did not require regular communication between the plaintiff and his Counsel. It was accepted that the plaintiff's Counsel did not have any information about the death of the plaintiff till 17.9.1993. The application under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, was moved within three months of gaining he knowledge of death. The learned Additional District Judge accepted that there was "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay as there was want of knowledge of the death of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge further held that it was not a case of negligence on part of the Counsel for the plaintiff and ignorance and lack of information of death of plaintiff precluded taking of requisite steps.