RATAN LAL Vs. BIRBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a recall application, dated 10- 6-2002, preferred against the order, dated 18-5-2002, passed by this Court in the restoration Application No. 177 of 1995-96/ Rampur, abating the same for non-substitution of heirs of the Opposite Party No. 3, Chokhey Lal, deceased.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that after the lease, granted in favour of Ratan Lal, was cancelled by the learned trial Court, on the complaint of Chokhey Lal, the allottees preferred a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who made a reference to the Board. On 16-11-1994, this reference was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 18 CPC, against which a restoration application was moved by the revisionist, impleading Chokhey Lal deceased Opposite Party No. 3. This restoration application was abated automatically, vide the impugned order dated 18-5-2002. Now, the instant recall application has been preferred with the plea that the point for consideration before the Court was of limitation.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that it has been observed that even after the expiry of six years, no substitution application was moved in respect of the deceased party and the period of limitation for filing such, application and setting aside the automatic abatement has since been expired. The law of the point is rather very clear that such abatement operates automatically and there is no escape from it. The point of limitation could have been looked into, had the restoration application not abated automatically for non-substitution of the deceased, Chokhey Lal, who had been arrayed as Opposite Party No. 3, to the restoration application. Since no substitution application was moved, to my mind, the impugned order has rightly been passed and therefore. I see no reason to interfere with the same.