SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. BALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original respondent No. 1 Baluram s/o Nathulal Goyal filed a civil suit against Motilal s/o Prahladji Agrawal and M/s Ramdhan Kisanlal with the allegation that the original defendant No. 1 Motilal was inducted as a tenant but during the tenancy, he sub-let part of the suit property to original defendant No. 2. It is worth noticing that the suit was filed in the year 1961 and is still pending.

(2.) IT is also to be noted that the original defendant No. 2 M/s Ramdhan kisanlal was joined as a partnership firm with its two partners viz. , Ramdhan s/o kishorilal and Kisanlal s/o Ramnath Agrawal. Somewhere in January, 1997, one suresh Kumar filed an application with a submission that Ramdhan s/o kishorilal had expired long back, his legal representatives have not been brought on record, the suit had abated and in case the Court finds that the suit had not abated, then a direction be issued to the plaintiff to correct the record.

(3.) ON 29-9-2003, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 22 rule 4, CPC for substitution of the legal representatives. However, separate applications under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC for setting aside abatement and under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay were not filed. On 10-12-2003, a consolidated application under Order 22 Rule 9, CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be filed. The applications were opposed tooth and nail. However, by impugned order dated 7-7-2007, the learned Trial Court allowed the application, therefore, the legal representatives of Ramdhan s/o kishorilal have come to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of india.