DIGVIJAY SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cmp No.8255 of 2016 in RFA No.263 of 2008 and CMP No.8259 of 2016.

(2.) Co-Respondent No.45 Jai Dev Singh during the pendency of the aforementioned appeals died on 31.03.2011. However, the instant applications for begetting his substitution by his legal representatives stand belatedly instituted yet the application contains an explication for the belated institution of the applications at hand. The explication purveyed in the apposite applications for their belated institution before this Court is sound besides tenable, whereupon this Court is constrained to accept it also is constrained to conclude of the delay which has occurred in the institution of the applications at hand warranting its standing condoned. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

(3.) S/Sh. Bansa Ram and Braham Dutt, who stand arrayed in RFA No. 279 as proforma respondents No.18 and 20 respectively died on 15.08.2005 and 21.01.2008. The demise of the aforesaid occurred during the pendency of the civil suit before the learned trial Court. However, no application stood preferred therebefore by the counsel for the plaintiffs to beget their substitution by their legal representatives, obviously, their names continued to be reflected in the array of co-plaintiffs also when on their demise they remained unsubstituted by their legal representatives, yet the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, despite the factum of the aforesaid deceased co-plaintiffs remaining unsubstituted by their legal representatives. The renditions of apposite decrees by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 1-S/1 of 2008/05 and Civil Suit No. 2-S/1 of 2008/05 wherein the aforesaid were impleaded as co-plaintiffs are a nullity significantly when they stand pronounced against dead co-plaintiffs aforesaid. Also the applications preferred herebefore for begetting substitution of deceased co-plaintiffs/respondents No.18 and 20 are not maintainable hereat given the candid expostulation of law of the apposite application being preferable only before the Court whereat the demise of any party to the lis occurs also the Court whereat demise of any party to the lis occurs alone standing vested with jurisdiction to both, entertain and render an adjudication thereupon. Consequently, given the occurrence of demise of proforma respondent No.15 Bansa Ram and of proforma respondent No.20 Braham Dutt, co-plaintiffs in civil suits, during the pendency of the civil suits aforementioned before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., in sequel, the instant applications bearing CMP(M) Nos. 1726 and 1727 of 2016 preferred herebefore at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants/applicants for begetting substitution of deceased proforma respondents Bansa Ram and Braham Dutt by their legal representatives are not maintainable herebefore. In sequel, CMP (M) Nos. 1726 and 1727 are dismissed theirs being not maintainable before this Court. Also since, the impugned renditions of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan stand rendered against deceased proforma respondent Nos.15 Bansa Ram and proforma respondent No. 20 Shri Braham Dutt, coplaintiffs in civil suits, consequently, the impugned renditions of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, stand ingrained with a vice of nullity theirs standing rendered against deceased co- plaintiffs. In aftermath, the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Solan to after rendering an adjudication in accordance with law upon applications preferred before it by the plaintiffs for begetting substitution of deceased proforma respondents No.15 Shri Bansa Ram and proforma respondents No.20 Braham Dutt, co-plaintiffs in civil suits, by their legal representatives proceed to decide both the civil suits aforesaid afresh. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan on 10th November, 2016. Records be sent back forthwith. Accordingly, the instant appeals stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.