NANDA Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order in this appeal would equally govern the disposal of the Civil Appeals Nos. 315 of 1970 and 316 of 1970, inasmuch as, in all these three appeals, where the respondents-plaintiffs art exactly the same, similar point is involved, pertaining to the death of one of the respondents-plaintiffs i. e. Badrilal, and the effect of such death on these pending appeals.

(2.) Respondents-plaintiffs had filed the three suits against different sets of defendants in the matter of their right and title to the respective disputed lands against the respective sets of defendants. All the suits were decreed by the trial Court; and the respective appeals preferred by the defendants were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Thereafter, the defendants filed the present second appeal and so also the other two.

(3.) During the pendency of these three appeals, Badrilal, one of the respondents-plaintiffs, expired about 5 or 6 years back from .now, with no steps taken so far by the appellants-defendants to bring the L. Rs. of the deceased respondent-plaintiff Badrilal, on record. The appellants-defendants, in each of these three appeals, have filed four applications,--one, under Order 22, Rule 9, C. P. C. for setting aside the abatement, the other, under Order 22, Rule 4, C. P. C. for bringing the L. Rs. on record, the third, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the two applications under Order 22, Rule 9, C. P. C. and Order 22, Rule 4, C. P. C.; and the last, under Order 32, Rule 3, C. P. C. for appointment of a guardian of the proposed two minor L. Rs. All these applications were vehemently opposed by the learned counsel of the remaining respondents-plaintiffs on record, in the light of the facts as mentioned in these applications. Arguments on both sides were heard.