HARYANA SAKET COUNCIL, CHANDIMANDIR Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. 6686-CII of 1995 has been filed by the legal representatives of Jagan Nath-deceased seeking dismissal of revision petition No. 3893 of 1993 on the ground that the same had been filed against a dead person. As per averments made in this application the respondents have stated that Jagan Nath expired on 22.12.1988 and this fact was to the notice of the petitioner earlier to the date when the revision petition was filed as is clear from Annexure A-3, copy of the order in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. To get rid of this inherent infirmity in the revision petition, C.M. No. 7342-CII of 1995 has been filed by the petitioner, replying to the C.M. No. 6686-CII of 1995 and tried to highlight the various facts noticed by the Courts in the pending proceedings, namely, in the regular second appeal as well as before the executing Court. Petitioner has tried to justify this omission on the ground that this fact was not known to him nor the same was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner who was conducting the case before the Apex Court and so has now filed another application that the legal representatives of the accused be permitted to be brought on record under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C./Section 153, C.P.C.

(2.) I have heard that learned counsel for the parties to peruse the orders referred to by the respective counsel. Admittedly, Shri Jagan Nath expired on 22.12.1988 i.e. almost 5 years before the filing of the revision petition. Revision petition was obviously filed against a dead person and is deemed to be an nullity. Even on the merit to the controversy raised, I find no substance in the contention of the revision petitioner for the simple reason that even before the Supreme Court it is the legal representatives of Jagan Nath who had put in appearance and it is only on a subsequent date that after hearing the parties. Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thus, it is too late for the petitioner to contend that this fact escaped his notice or that it was not brought to his notice by the concerned advocate. Accordingly, I accept C.M. No. 6686-CII of 1995 and so dismiss the revision.