MATHI DEVI Vs. DHARAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHEWAN Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners filed a suit through his attorney, Amar Dass against Dharam Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents. Amar Dass was the brother of Khewan Ram. Amar Dass died sometime in July, 1995 and thereafter the plaintiff, Khewan Ram appointed Hinender Kumar, son of Amar Dass, as his attorney.

(2.) THE suit was filed in January, 1993 and issues were framed on 7.9.1994. Hinender Kumar appeared as a witness of the plaintiffs on 8.4.1996. When his statement was being recorded, counsel for the defendants pointed out that defendant Dharam Dass had died. Immediately thereafter on 18.4.1996 an application was moved under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. by Haninder Kumar, the new attorney, for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased-defendant Dharam Dass alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for condoning the delay in filing the application.

(3.) THIS application was contested on various grounds. The learned trial court held that the plaintiffs were aware about the death of defendant Dharam Dass and there was no ground for condoning the delay and the suit was dismissed as having abated. The present petitioners challenged the order before the learned District Judge, Shimla who, vide the impugned judgment, affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence the present revision petition.