CHUNNI LAL Vs. SORAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A second appeal by Chunni Lal. On 15-2-1991 Hori Lal, aged about 48 years, moves an application that his father has died on or about 23-8-1988 his legal heirs himself, Balbir, Ishwari Prasad and Virendra be substituted. In additional a motion under Sec. 5, Limitation Act with an affidavit to condone the delay. This is the prespective.

(2.) I have heard as respects this motion for substitution.

(3.) The reasons are explained in an affidavit by an adult son Hori Lal. He affirms on oath that he did not know here to before that a second appeal is going apace in Board of Revenue. The statement is that he had received a letter dated 21-1-1991 from Advocates office to Chunni Lal, in hand in the first week of Feb. 1991, disclosing the date of hearing; 19-2-1991. Immediately thereafter he comes to Allahabad on 13-2-1991, apprises Advocate Sri N. S. Singhal that Chunni Lal has expired leaving behind his four sons as legal heirs. In this setting, the request to condone all the delay. On an earnest consideration I am of opinion that explanation is purile and fails to win may applause.