BAHADUR SINGH Vs. HAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal must be dismissed as having abated. T he relevant facts are undisputed and are these, Shrimati Har Kaur, the sole respondent died on the 6th of May, 1960. By a letter dated the 23rd of July, 1960, the counsel for the appellants informed them about her death and, on the 9th of August, 1960, an application was made on their behalf praying that six persons be impleaded as respondents in substitution for Shrimati Har Kaur. The application as well as the affidavits filed in support of it stated:-

(2.) EVEN if it be taken for granted that the appellants had no knowledge of the death of Shrimati Har Kaur prior to the receipt by them of the letter dated the 23rd of July, 1960 said too have been written to them by their counsel, they have failed to show and even to put forward any sufficient reason for not making the earlier application within the period allowed by law which expired no earlier than the 4 th of August, 1960. The said letter, it may be presumed was received by them on the day when it would have normally reached them by post and I do not think it would be legitimate for the Court to assume that they were in receipt of it later than, say, the 28th of July, 1960, especially when they have remained content with making a very vague allegation in this regard, that being to the effect: "the letter of their counsel, which was received a few days ago. " If the letter reached the appellants on the 27th or 28th of July, 1960, they could easily obtain information about the names and other particulars of Shrimati Har Kaur's legal representatives within a day or two and then make the required application under Rule 9 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on or before the 4th of August, 1960. That they failed to do and they have only themselves to blame for the expiry of the period of limitation provided for the making of an application praying that the legal representatives of the deceased party be brought on the record. Their failure has operated to vest a right in the opposite party and that right cannot be taken away unless the appellants are able to show sufficient cause for not making the application within time.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants relies upon the following observations in Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan v. Om Press Co. Ltd. , Fazilka, AIR 1960 Punj 335 (FB) in support of his contention that the abovementioned failure on their part is liable to be condoned:-