LOLAR Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I. A. Nos. 2876/2012. 2877/2012 and I. A. No. 2879/2012 filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act respectively.

(2.) In the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC (I.A. No. 2876/2012) it has been averred that during the pendency of this second appeal, respondent No.1 Gulab Singh died on 11-10-1996, respondent No. 4 Suryabali Singh died on 26-5-1998 and respondent No.2 Munna Singh also died on 26-10-2010 leaving behind their legal representatives mentioned in the application. Photo-copies of death certificates of these deceased respondents have also been filed. In the application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC (I. A. No. 2877/2012) it has been stated that appellants have no connection to the respondents and their LRs and the distance between the two villages where the respective parties live is quite far away to each other and hence the delay in filing the application to bring the LRs of deceased respondents 1, 2 and 4 be condoned and the abatement be set aside and the same prayer has been made in the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act (LA. No. 2879/2012).

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that this Court on 7-7-2011 allowed the appeal of appellants in part and plaintiffs were declared Bhumiswami of Survey Nos. 243, 274, 258, and 261 but since the judgment was passed against three dead respondents, hence this Court on 22-2-2012 in Review Petition 42/2012 allowed the re-view application on the said ground. Learned counsel submits that Survey Nos. 243, 274, 258 and 261 are not even the part of suit prop-erty and, therefore, a decree in favour of plaintiffs for these survey numbers cannot be allowed.