POORANLAL Vs. PHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS aggrieved by order dated 20.2.1998 has filed present appeal. By the impugned order, appeal filed by Pooranlal against Phool Singh was held to be abated and appellants were not permitted to be substituted in place of Pooranlal. Apart from this, another application filed by appellants under Order 22 rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure for substitution of legal heirs of Phool Singh was also rejected by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as under : Pooranlal suffered a decree for eviction in Regular Civil Suit No. 121 -A of 1994 passed by VII Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal on 28.4.1995. During the pendency of the appeal Pooranlal died on 4.6.1996. An application under Order 22 rule 3, CPC was filed on 6.9.1996 by which appellants sought permission of the Court for substitution in place of Pooranlal. The aforesaid application was barred by four days. On 2.2.1998 an application under section 5 of Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 rule 3 CPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellants submits that there is sufficient cause for not filing the application within 90 days under Order 22 rule 3 CPC. Subsequently application under section 5 of Limitation Act was filed on 2.2.1998 and the Court ought to have taken a liberal view in the case. The provisions are procedural in nature and the litigant cannot be penalised on the basis of aforesaid procedure. The lower appellate Court committed error and application ought to have been allowed by condoning four days' delay in filing the application.