KARAM CHAND Vs. BAKSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in C.A. No. 58 of 1994, whereby the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (2), Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 154 of 1990 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge has been affirmed. Hence the present appeal by the appellants in which application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC (being CMP (M) No. 44 of 2001) for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Pohlo Ram, respondent No. 6 and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (being CMP (M) No. 45 of 2001) for condonation of delay in filing the application i.e. CMP (M) No. 44/2001, have also been filed.

(2.) I have herd the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.

(3.) It is not in dispute that Pohlo Ram, deceased, was defendant No. 18 before the trial Court and decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against all the defendants -appellants including said Pohlo Ram. Said Pohlo Ram was appellant No. 22 before the lower appellate Court and had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and the appeal was dismissed. Thus, Pohlo Ram was an effective and necessary party to the Us. It is also not in spute that said Pohlo Ram had died on 12.8.1996 i.e. during the pendency of the first appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur but his legal representatives were not brought on record and the lower appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree on merits as if said Pohlo Ram was alive.