LAGRAVE JAYASEELI Vs. TRINITE MODESTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to condone the delay of 909 days, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the Sole Appellant, on 13/1/2010 and to bring on record the Petitioners as the representatives in interest of the deceased sole Appellant-Lagrave Jayaseeli. The Applications have been filed invoking the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground that they have purchased portions of the Suit property pending the proceedings from the deceased sole Appellant. Contentions of the Petitioners:

(2.) In the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the Petitioners would contend that it was only during the 1st week of October 2012, that they had come to know that the above Second Appeal had been dismissed as abated on 29/9/2011. They would also contend that it was only on account of the collusion between the Respondents and the deceased Appellant that the matter was allowed to be dismissed for default.

(3.) They would further contend that the deceased Appellant had sold the entire Suit property to more than hundred persons including the Petitioners herein and that they have been in possession of their respective portions ever since 1993. They have also contended that in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 of the C.P.C, there is a devolution of interest in their favour and they would step into the shoes of the deceased Appellant and are, therefore entitled to continue the legal proceedings. They would also submit that they were unaware about the proceedings pending before this Court and therefore, there was delay in bringing them on record. Objections of the Respondents: