RAMUA (DEAD) Vs. KODULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today the case is listed for hearing on IA No.6938/2021 under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC; IA No.6939/2021 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and also IA No.6937/2021 under Order 22 Rule 3/11 of CPC. All these applications have been fled by respondent no. 1 on 20/9/2021.

(2.) I.A. No.6938/2021 under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure fled seeking setting aside of the abatement is barred by time. It is fled accompanied by an application i.e. I.A. No.6939/2021 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) On 20/9/2021 the application i.e. IA No.6938/2021 under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the abatement against the deceased appellant no. 1 has been fled by respondent no. 1 stating that during the pendency of the cross-appeal, appellant no. 1 Ramua S/o. Devi Mehra died on 12/7/2018 and respondent no.1 came to the knowledge of death of appellant no. 1 in the month of September, 2021 frst time and thus, respondent no.1 was required for substitution of his legal representatives of the deceased appellant no. 1 in the memo of cross-appeal within a period of 90 days but the same was not done within the prescribed period of time and thus, the cross-appeal is abated against the deceased appellant no.1 on 10/10/2018. The limitation for fling the application was up to 9/12/2018 and this application was also not fled within a period of 60 days from the date of abatement. It is further contended that the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had not informed respondent no. 1 and even this Court regarding the death of appellant no. 1. Respondent no. 1 is residing in remote area and is a rustic villager and he belongs to rural folk, or is poverty stricken or illiterate and is mostly not aware of the necessity of taking steps for substitution on the death of a party.