DHAPUBAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 909 of 2000 (Smt. Dhapubai and others v. Union of India and another). The appellants have filed this Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC against the order dated 20.4.2000, passed by the II ADJ, Mhow, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 541/94, thereby rejecting the applications filed on behalf of the appellants under Order 22 Rule 9 read with section 151, CPC, for setting aside abatement and also an application under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC, for bringing LRs of claimants and also an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , reference proceedings u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were pending before the Court below. During the pendency of the reference, Mangilal, sole claimant, died on 4.6.1999. Thereafter on 12.11.1999, the legal heirs of the claimant Mangilal filed applications under Order 22 Rule 3 read with section 151, CPC, for bringing LRs on record alongwith application under Order 22 Rule 9 for setting aside abatement and application u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. These applications were heard and decided by the reference Court by order dated 20.4.2000. The reference Court rejected the aforesaid applications simply on the ground that the appellant has failed to make out a case for condonation of delay as the application was barred by limitation for more than two months and no sufficient cause was assigned in the application against which the applicant has preferred this miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant relied on the decisions reported in the case of State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1984, Rama Ravalu Gavade v. Sataba Gavadu Gavadu (dead) through LRs and another, reported in 1997 Supreme Appeals Reporter (SC) 61 and Ram Sumiran and others v. D.D.C. and others, reported in AIR 1985 SC 606, in which it has been held that in cases of setting aside abatement, the liberal approach should be considered because the applicants belong to rural area and are illeterate, they do not know the law, therefore, in such circumstances the application should not have been dismissed. In reply, Shri Neema, learned senior standing counsel for Union of India, does not dispute the submissions made by Shri Maheshwari.