HARJINDER KAUR Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed this application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for condonation of delay in filing a revision petition against the order dated .8.5.1995, passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunder Nagar, whereby he held their suit as abated and consigned it to the records.

(2.) Brief and undisputed facts leading to the presentation of this application are that the applicants and one Gurdit Singh (since deceased) instituted a suit against the non-applicants 3 and 4 and the predecessors-in-interest of the Respondents, who died and is represented by the non-applicants, for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the non-applicants from digging holes and raising new plants etc. on and changing the nature of the land comprising khasra Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to 10, measuring 62-14-9 big has,, situate in Mohal Kharti, Teh. Sunder Nagar. During the pendency of the suit, one of the Plaintiffs, namely, Gurdit Singh died. However, an application to bring on record his legal representatives was not filed in the. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed intimating that said Gurdit Singh had died and his legal representatives were already on record and none was required to be brought on record as his legal representative. Therefore, a prayer was made to delete his name from the array of the Plaintiffs. The application was resisted by the non-applicants on the grounds that the deceased was survived by his wife and it was wrong that his legal representatives were already on record and they represented the estate of the deceased. It was claimed that the right to sue did not survive to the surviving Plaintiffs and the suit stood abated. The learned trial Judge, vide his order dated 8.5.1995 held that the wife of the deceased is alive and since she has not been impleaded as legal representative of the deceased, the suit stood abated and accordingly, ordered it to be consigned to the records.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the applicants preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi vide judgment dated 1.4.1999 which judgment was assailed by the non-applicants in Civil Revision No. 180 of 1999 in this Court. The revision petition was allowed vide judgment dated 24.9.2001 and it was held that the appeal under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code'), preferred by the applicants before the learned Additional District Judge was not competent and the learned Additional District Judge, by entertaining and allowing such appeal, had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him. Therefore, the judgment passed by him was set aside. It is against this admitted background that the applicants want to prefer a revision petition against the order dated 8.5.1995 passed by the learned trial Judge whereby the suit has been held as abated and has been consigned to the records. The revision petition admittedly has been filed after expiry of 6 years, 6 months and 19 days from the date of order sought to be challenged. Hence this application.