NATHA RAM Vs. HUKAM CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three applications. One application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in making the application under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second application is an application for setting aside the order dated 21st March, 1980 dismissing the second appeal as having been abated, and the third application is an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to delete the name of the sole appellant Natha Ram from the array of the parties and to substitute the names of the applicants in his place. The present appeal was filed by Natha Ram against the widow Smt. Draupati Devi and her minor son and daughter.

(2.) SUIT No. 992 of 1965 had been filed by Natha Ram against the respondents for ejectment of the respondents from the premises in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. Another suit No. 1016 of 1967 was filed by the minor son Hukum Chandra and minor daughter Km, Meena through their next friend against Natha Ram for redemption of mortgage on the basis of transaction in suit. Both the suits came up for hearing before the trial Court. Suit No. 992 of 1965 was decreed for ejectment of the respondents while suit No. 1016 of 1967 filed for redemption was dismissed. This judgment was delivered on 22 -12 -1969. Aggrieved against the said judgment two appeals were filed before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court by judgment dated 19 -11 -1970 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and decreed the suit No. 1016 of 1967 for redemption of the mortgage. The respondents were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 200/ - as mortgage money. It was further directed that in case the respondents failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 200/ - then the suit shall stand dismissed. So far as the Suit No. 992 of 1965 is concerned, the decree for ejectment was passed in case the mortgage money was not deposited as directed by the Court. If the mortgage money is deposited the ejectment was not to be given effect to.

(3.) AFTER the appeal was abated, all the three applications have been filed in this Court on 28th September, 1981.