MAHILA LILA Vs. VIMLABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lachi Tewari, AIR 1984 SC 41 has infused life into this lis in the instant case. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently disputes this position, but I feel disinclined to agree with him.

(2.) On 4-1-1981, the sole-defendant died. An application was prepared and signed by the plaintiff on 4-4-1981 for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. However, unfortunately, it could be filed in the Court by the counsel only on 9-4-1981. The short point, therefore, is, who will suffer for counsel's default? Lachi Tewari (supra) is the right and complete answer to the question. The plaintiff shall not suffer and her case shall not fail. Indeed, this view was rightly taken by the trial Court as the period of limitation was computed not from the date on which it was prepared and signed for being filed. No fault can be found with the Court in accepting the position and the impugned order is immune to challenge. Petitioner's counsel, Shri K. S. Agrawal, has relied on the decision of their Lordships in State of Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Bakir El Edross, AIR 1981 SC 1921 (but the facts of this case were entirely different.) The legal proposition laid down therein is unexceptionable, but that has no application to the facts of the instant case, which is covered clearly by the decision of their Lordships in Lachi Tewari (supra).

(3.) In the result, this application fails and is dismissed. No costs in the circumstances of the case.