IKBAL AHMAD Vs. MATLOOB HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the main contesting respondent no. 3 (plaintiff), whose suit was decreed, it transpires that latter had died on 27.8.2011 but the information of his death was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant in the Court on 15.05.2014. So, the Substitution Application No. 8350 of 2014 was moved on 01.08.2014 well within the maximum time prescribed for such substitution.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 3 has resisted this substitution application by placing reliance upon the death certificate (Annexure 1) enclosed with the setting aside abatement application no. 8349 of 2014 by arguing that this death certificate, showing the death of Sri Swaroop Singh on 27.7.2011, was issued on 03.09.2011. So, issuing the said certificate, by itself, should be enough to presume the knowledge to the appellant regarding the date of death of Sri Swaroop Singh. If it is taken in that sense then this substitution application has been moved quite belatedly and it should be dismissed. The Court is unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that issuance of such certificate, on 03.09.2011, by itself, does not show that it was issued to the appellant in person on his application. In those circumstances, it should be taken in the sense that the appellant could gather information about the death of plaintiff only when his learned counsel submitted information in the Court on 15.05.2014.

(3.) I am unable to agree with this contention also for the reason that the possibility cannot be ruled out where the affected party may not have any knowledge regarding the date of death of his opponent wherefore e the substitution application has to be moved seeking impleadment his heirs. There may be cases where the opposite party may not have knowledge even for years regarding the death of his opponent.