KARSANBHAI AMARABHAI RABARI Vs. MATHURBHAI KARABHAI VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application to the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal made in Revision Application No. TEN. B.A. 226/85 on 7-6-1988. Before the Tribunal, the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner submitted a purshis on 9-4-1987 that Mathurbhai Karabhai Vasava has died on 2-7-1985. He has also produced death certificate to show that the aforesaid person has died on the aforesaid date. Deceased Mathurbhai Karabhai Vasava was applicant before the Tribunal. The counsel for the other side (the petitioner herein) raised an objection that as per Rule 24 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1959, the legal heirs of deceased have to be made parties to the proceedings, but no such application was received within prescribed period of 90 days and as such, the revision application is abated. On 7-1-1988, an application was filed on behalf of the legal heirs of Mathurbhai Karabhai Vasava by the Advocate Shri I. A. Pathan. The said application was accepted by the Tribunal and the abatement has been ordered to be set aside. The legal heirs of deceased Mathurbhai Karabhai Vasava were ordered to be substituted as applicants. This order is challenged by the petitioner by this petition.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the abatement. It has next been contended that the respondents have not filed a separate application for setting aside of the abatement. It has last been contended that the application has not been filed within time and no ground much less a sufficient ground has been given for condonation of delay. The Tribunal has committed serious illegality in condoning the delay in filing of the application and setting aside the abatement. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention on the decision of this court in the case of Amritlal vs. Siddiq Ismail reported in 24 GLR 1305 as well as of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ramcharan reported in AIR 1964 SC 215 and in the case of Rangubai vs. Suderbai reported in AIR 1965 SC 1764.

(3.) In have given my thoughtful considerartion to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.