LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-110

LAL CHAND Vs. RAGHU NATH

Decided On May 19, 2009
LAL CHAND Appellant
V/S
RAGHU NATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has arisen out of the order dated 13.9.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat, whereby, he while holding that the application for impleading the legal representatives of Sohan Lal suffered from delay, upheld the abatement order passed by the trial court on 13.10.1997 and the application for review of the said order was dismissed on 23.8.2006. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners-appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit while pleading that their predecessor-in-interest namely Sohan Lal was a tenant over the piece of land measuring 8 kanals 12 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kurar Ibrahimpur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. The respondents No. 6 to 13 i.e. Landlords sold the piece of land to the respondents No. 1 to 5 without serving notice upon Sohan Lal who exercised his right of pre-emption. Thus, they challenged the sale deed and filed a civil suit for pre-emption. Sohan Lal expired during the pendency of the suit i.e. on 8.12.1992. The application for impleading the L.Rs was filed by the plaintiffs on 6.3.1995. The said application was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sonepat on 13.10.1997. The plaintiffs further averred that the factum with regard to abatement of the suit was never conveyed to them by their counsel namely Ranbir Singh, Advocate. They came to know about the said order dated 13.10.1997 in the month of March, 1999, through Mr. S.P. Jain, Advocate, then they preferred an application on 6.5.1999 for review of the order dated 13.10.1997, but the said application was dismissed on 23.8.2006. The appeal preferred by them against the order dated 13.10.1997 as well as 23.8.2006 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat on 13.9.2008.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that after the amendment was made by the High Court in Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 of CPC, there is no limitation for impleading the L.Rs. and the only condition precedent for impleading them was the pendency of the suit.