BHJAN KAUR Vs. HAZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal.

(2.) After the filing of the appeal, appellants No. 1 and 2 died one after another. Bhajan Kaur died on 25.10.1991 and the second appellant died on 20.11.1998. The applications for impleadment had been brought beyond a period of 90 days and even after 60 days when the appeal must have been taken as abated. The applications were, however, filed for condoning the delay in filing the applications for impleadment and to set aside the abatement. There had been also contest on whether the person, who was trying to implead herself as a legal representative was really the daughter or of Mango and the reference in the death certificate referring to Mango as having an alias Manjit Kaur was taken as a point of dispute by the respondent and this Court had, therefore, called for a report from the trial Court to elicit whether Mango had an alias Manjit Kaur and whether Gurmit Kaur, who claimed herself to be the daughter of Mango was indeed her daughter and the legal representative of Mango. The Court has returned the finding that Mango had alias by name Manjit Kaur and Gurmit Kaur was daughter and a legal representative. I have gone through the report given and I will find that it is well reasoned one, having allowed patties to enter a very serious contest in applications for impleadment as though they were dealing literally with right to property itself.

(3.) At the forefront of the arguments of respondent, it was contended that the applications for impleadment after death of Bhajan Kaur were filed only on 10.12.1997 while the death of Bhajan Kaur had taken place even on 25.10.1991. The contention was that the amendment to Order 22 Rule 3 brought by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 22.02.1992 was not applicable to a case of death that had taken place prior to the amendment. Consequently, the applications which were barred by Article 120, not having been filed within 90 days to implead the legal representatives, resulted in abatement of the appeals. The applications had been supported by a statement that the legal representatives were illiterate and they did not know the provision of law that they had to implead themselves within time. They also contended that they were under the impression that no steps need be taken to implead the Legal representatives. This the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would point out was unacceptable and no appropriate reasons have been given to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in filing the appeal. I am setting this out because it would become essential to stave off any technical objection from coming in the way from consideration of a core issue of validity of the Will.