SOHANBEN Vs. RANDEVIBEN NANDLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, requires to be allowed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff landlady, Smt. Ramadeviben Nandlal Shah had instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 1098 of 1976, against the deceased husband of the present appellant, namely, Mulchand Ruplal. The said suit came to be decreed and the matter was carried to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, by filing H.R.P. Civil Appeal No. 373 of 1980. During the pendency of this appeal, the husband of the present appellant, Mulchand Rupla had expired. Unfortunately, Sohanben, who figures as the appellant before me, and who happens to be the widow of deceased Mulchand Ruplal, continued to pay and/or deposit the rental, also, before the Appellate Court, Any how, because of various reasons, she could not make the necessary application for impleading tier own self as the legal representative of deceased Mulchand Ruplal. On the expiry of the statutory time limit, the appeal was deemed to be abated. Later on, two applications came to be submitted on her behalf, at Exhs. 11 and 14, in the appeal. The first application was for the condonation of the delay and the second was for bringing her own self on record as the heir and the legal representative of the deceased. This prayer came to be challenged by the other side and, ultimately, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the settled legal position, the Appellate Bench had come to the conclusion that, both the applications were required to be dismissed, with no order as to costs. This view has resulted in such orders, dated April 16,1986. These orders are in challenge in the present appeal before me.

(3.) The detailed orders passed by the Appellate Bench would go to show that the appellant before me, namely Sohanben was perfectly justified in making a prayer for setting aside the abatement and for her own impleading as heir and legal representative of deceased Mulchand Ruplal. It should not be overlooked and that it should not have escaped the notice of the Court below that, she had gone on paying or depositing the rent. Her husband was not keeping well for some time and, later on, following the tradition and the custom of the society to which she belongs, she was not able to move out. Her best efforts would have been to contact the learned Counsel who used to represent her cause before the Appellate Court and further to see that everything is put in order. This has not happened, but, on the appreciation of the punctual position, it appears that, there is a of substance in the say, with which, Sohanben had gone before the Court below, by way of ; the above said two applications. In the lads circumstances of the case, it shall have to recognised that, there was sufficient cause for not making the application in time and 33 there is further sufficient cause to set side the abatement. The present appeal from order, therefore, is required to be allowed and die orders in challenge, passed by the Appellate Bench below Application Exhs. 11 and 14, in the appeal before them, are hereby set side. The delay is condoned. The abatement is set-aside and the present appellant Sohanben is hereby ordered to be impleaded in the appeal as the heir and legal representative of ceased Mulchand Ruplal. The appeal shall, now. have to be decided on merits and according to law. The necessary amendment in memorandum of the appeal shall, of course, gave to be carried out by the appellant, within period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of the present orders, by the Appellate Court. It would be appropriate, the Appellate Court decides the matter with most expedition. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.