TEJ RAM Vs. DRUMTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995 refusing to condone delay for filing application under Order 22 Rules 3, 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing on record legal representatives of Molak Ram after setting aside abatement of the appeal.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that Molak Ram filed a suit foe declaration and possession regarding land comprised in Mohal Bhantha I/479 Khewat No. 57 min, Khatauni No. 107 Khasra No. 150, 151, Kita 3 measuring 1 -12 -8 bighas and Khatauni No. 109 Khasra No. 147 measuring 2 -3 -12 bighas. The suit was contested by defendant No.1, who took preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi, jurisdiction and valuation of the suit. On merits, defendant No.1 pleaded that he was a non occupancy tenant on the suit land and by operation of law he has become owner of the suit land. On an oral understanding the possession of the suit land was given by him to the plaintiff for two years but after the expiry of two years the plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the suit land to him. The plaintiff is a trespasser on the suit land. The defendant No.1 filed a counter claim for declaration that he is owner of the suit land, alternatively he may be declared tenant on the suit land and he prayed decree for possession against plaintiff. The trial Court on 31.3.1995 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim of defendant No.1 and directed the plaintiff to deliver the possession of the suit land to defendant No.1 within three months.

(3.) Molak Ram filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1995, he died on 24.5.1996. An application dated 7.2.1998 was filed on 7.2.1998 by Duma Ram son of Molak Ram for setting aside abatement of the appeal and for bringing on record legal representatives of Molak Ram. It was alleged that appeal was filed by Molak Ram through his son and power of attorney holder Tej Ram, who did not tell the Court proceedings to applicant Duma Ram. Khem Raj, proforma respondent informed the pendency of the appeal to the applicant and thereafter the application was filed by the applicant Duma Ram for setting aside abatement and bringing on record legal representatives of Molak Ram.