LAWS(MPH)-2000-11-51

GOVIND DAS Vs. SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI

Decided On November 30, 2000
GOVIND DAS Appellant
V/S
Sewa Sahkari Samiti Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON Applicant No. 2 has not been issued notice for want of payment of registered A/D postal charges by the petitioner. This petition, therefore. should be dismissed on this ground alone in default of non compliance of Court orders. However, the petitioner counsel Shri Bajpai filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3, CPC today. Copy given to the non-applicant counsel. Parties heard on this application.

(2.) SHRI Sharma also filed reply of this application along with death certificate of the petitioner. In this application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, it has been mentioned that during pendency of this revision petition, the petitioner had died. This fact was informed to all three sons of the petitioner through a letter by the petitioner counsel. All his three sons are his legal representatives, therefore, they be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner as his LRs. Counsel for NA No. 1 by his written reply opposed the application and filed the death certificate of the Gram Panchayat showing that the petitioner had died on 11.12.1999. Condolence card has also been enclosed along with the reply. It is further contended that this application is time barred and that a separate application to set aside the abatement as is required under Order 22, Rule 9 CPC has also not been filed. Revision petition has therefore been abated and should be dismissed on this ground alone.

(3.) IN this application under Order 22, Rule 3, CPC it has not been mentioned that excepting three sons, no any other LR is surviving to the petitioner. The non applicant No 1 in its reply has submitted that the widow and two daughters of the deceased are also surviving him. This fact has not been denied during the arguments. In this way besides three sons, widow and two daughters are also the LR' s of the deceased petitioner and they have not been proposed to be impleaded as LRs of the deceased, whereas all the LR's of the deceased should be substituted and impleaded in his place. On this ground also this application being defective, cannot be granted.