JEMA S O HIRA Vs. NANDA RAOJI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. S. L. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicants and shri. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) These are the three applications filed by the original appellants in Second appeal No. 175 of 1991. During pendency of the second appeal, Nandu Raoji Rathod the respondent in Second Appeal No. 175 of 1991 is reported dead. He died on 30th July, 1997. The learned counsel for the respondent Nandu raoji Rathod filed pursis on 2nd September, 1997 in the second appeal informing the Court that the respondent died on 30th July, 1997. This act was noted by the learned counsel for the appellants on the very day. However, no steps were taken by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. The above referred three applications have been filed by the original appellants requesting therein to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement and for brining the legal representatives on record. The applications are opposed by the respondents by filing reply.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that knowing well that the respondent died, the legal representatives of the respondent are not brought on record, within the stipulated period and as such, the delay caused by the appellants is deliberate and intentional and as such, the delay does not deserve to be condoned and the applications for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record, deserve to be rejected. The respondent Asaram, who is the son of deceased Nandu Rathod, has filed his affidavit in reply while opposing the applications. The learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the applications, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of p. K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and another (AIR 1998 SC 2276) , submits that as the delay is caused deliberately, it does not deserve to be condoned.