RAM PYARE Vs. D D C BASTL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) RAM Pyare, the sole petitioner, died on 20-11-1978, survived by Jagannath, Sri Nath, RAM Shanker, Kripa Shanker, Murlidhar and Bansidhar, the sons and legal representatives. The original application for substitution is not traceable on the record. But from the order-sheet, dated 18-9-1979 and 2-4-1994, it is eloquent that the substitution application was filed, though beyond time, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. During the pendency of the said substitution application, one of the proposed legal representatives namely, RAM Shanker also breathed his last on 10-2-1987. His sons and legal representatives namely, Awadhesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar are sought to be substituted by means of the application filed on 5-1-1995.

(3.) IT was urged by Sri S. D. Pathak that the rest of the legal representatives of pristine petitioner Ram Pyare sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and therefore, the writ petition cannot be checked out as abated. To lend cogency to his contention, he has placed credence on a decision of the Supreme Court in Daya Shanker v. Sundari, AIR 1965 SC 1049. In that case, the appellant therein had impleaded heirs of the deceased- respondent so far as known to him within the time allowed by law, but omitted to bring on record some of the heirs. The question was whether this omission would rebound in abatement of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the legal representatives already brought on record would sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased Shyam Sundari and therefore, the appeal would not abate.