LILAWATI GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is there any difference in the law governing substitution of a deceased plaintiff/defendant in a civil suit and/or appellant/respondent in a civil appeal, on the one hand, and an applicant/opposite party or petitioner/opposite party, on the other hand, in a civil miscellaneous proceeding ? This is the core question, this revision which has been filed against the order, dated 16.8.2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc (J)(Arb) No. 199 of 2002, arising out of TS (Arb)No.51 of 1994, has raised.

(2.) Let me first, put in brief, herein below the facts giving rise to this revision : The award arising out of a contract agreement, entered into between the parties, was filed by the Arbitrator in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, in TS (Arb) No.51 of 1994. Sri KL Gupta (since deceased) who was one of the parties affected by the award, filed an application in the Court below for setting aside the said award. This application was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 199 of 2002. While this misc application was pending for disposal, the applicant died on 2.4.2002. The present revision petitioners, namely, the widow of the said deceased as well as their sons and daughters, filed an application in the Court below seeking to get themselves substituted in place of the said deceased. No valid objection was, admittedly, filed by the opposite party to the prayer for substitution so made; but upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Court below passed the order dated 16.8.2002, aforementioned dismissing the application for substitution on the ground that since no application for substitution had been made within the period of 90 days, which was the period of limitation for making an application for substitution, the misc application aforementioned stood abated. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants have now, approached this Court with the help of this revision petition.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have heard Mr. RD Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.