HARDYAL SINGH Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 24.8.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Shimla dismissing the application of petitioner/plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rules 3, 9 read with Section 151 CPC and also dismissing application under Order 22 Rules 3, 9 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) The further case of the petitioner is that Jaswant Singh plaintiff No.2 had died on 28.12.2001 and an application for bringing on record his legal representatives was filed but that application could not be filed within the statutory period as the petitioner was under the impression that heirs of Jaswant Singh would file such application for bringing them on record in place of deceased. But no such application was filed by them, therefore, petitioner had filed the application under Order 22 Rules 3, 9 CPC for bringing on record legal representatives of plaintiff No.2 Jaswant Singh alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The application is supported by an affidavit.

(3.) The application for condonation of delay was opposed by the defendants on the grounds that sufficient cause has not been explained. It was the duty of petitioner to file an application for bringing on record legal representatives of Jaswant Singh after his death. It has been submitted that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed in another consolidated suit stating therein that Jaswant Singh has died. It is thus clear that counsel for the petitioner was aware that Jaswant Singh had died on 28.12.2001.