VIRENDVA PAL SHARMA Vs. SITA RAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Pursuant to an ap plication dated 16-4-1996 for recording abatement filed on behalf of the respon dents by an order dated 24-2-1997 abate ment was recorded. In the said application is was pointed out by the respondents that Virendra Pal Sharma, revisionist died in September 1992. But no steps for substitu tion of the deceased was filed. Neither any counter- affidavit denying the death as al leged in the application dated 16-4-1996 was filed. By means of application filed on 16th October, 1997 the said order was sought to be recalled by the heirs of the deceased of Virendra Pal Sharma, alongwith an application under Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Proce dure, together with art application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for con donation of delay and substitution upon setting aside the abatement. The date of. Death of the revisionist has been men tioned as on 30-9-1993. Thus, it appears that an application has been made long after four year, and no steps were taken though the said application for recording abatement dated 16-4-1996 was served on the learned Counsel for the revisionist on 15-4-1996.

(2.) ON the question of setting aside abatement after condonation of delay and substitution of heirs of the deceased it was vehmentally argued by Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava learned Counsel for the op posite party that the petitioners are grossly responsible for the absence of deligence and are guilty of negligence, delay and latches. Therefore, no relief can be had by such undeserving persons. According to him the grounds taken for condonation of delay does not appear to be sufficient.

(3.) AN impression was created that if there is sound proposition in favour of the revisionist, in that event the matter should be re- heared on merits. This suggestion however, was accepted and the matter was argued for quite sometimes on diverse dates on merits.