MUNNEY KHAN Vs. KALLOO SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal from order has been filed against an order dated 5th May, 1984, passed by the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, whereby in an appeal preferred by the Appellant an application to set aside the abatement was dismissed and the appeal was held to have abated on the ground that Smt. Jamuna Devi who was Respondent No. 2 in the appeal had died during the pendency of the appeal and the application to substitute her legal representatives had been filed beyond the limitation prescribed without any sufficient cause.

(2.) THE facts in brief necessary for the decision of this appeal are that Kalloo Singh Respondent No. 1 and Smt. Jamuna Devi filed a suit in the trial court for injunction against the Appellant and the proforma Defendant -Respondents 2 and 3. This suit was contested by the Appellant but was decreed on 6th October, 1980 by the trial court restraining the Appellant alone who was Defendant No. 1 in the suit from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs. No decree was passed by the trial court as against Respondents 2 and 3. Aggrieved by that decree the Appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge and it is this appeal which was abated by the order appealed against.

(3.) IT is not disputed that Kalloo Singh Respondent No. 1 was one of the co -Plaintiffs along with Smt. Jamuna Devi deceased and that Smt. Jamuna Devi died leaving behind two legal representatives the Appellant as her son and Smt. Basanti Devi as her daughter. An application was made before the lower appellate court on behalf of the Appellant to substitute Smt. fiasanti Devi also as legal representative of Smt. Jamuna Devi, the other legal representative Kalloo Singh being already on record as co -Plaintiff. This application was dismissed by the lower appellate court by the order appealed against holding that it was highly belated and no sufficient cause had been made out for the delay.