(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances narrated in the application for condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. We find that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay is condoned and the application (I.A. No. 5454 of 2005) shall stand allowed.
(2.) WE have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the merits of the case and examined the entire records and the relevant proposition of law. We have also considered threadbare the text and context and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge on 6.5.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 9670 of 2000 and noticed that the rejection of the petition is based on a technical ground for not joining the heirs and legal representatives of respondent no. 6 in the writ petition, who died during the pendency of the petition.
(3.) AGAIN in these context we are tempted to refer to the amended provisions. incorporated in Rule 10A in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which, in clear terms, prescribes a duty of. a pleader that whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the court about it, and upon such information, the Court will take cognizance and thereupon give notice of such death to the other party. It will be also very interesting to note at this stage that by statutory fiction the Parliament in its wisdom has inserted a deeming fiction, whereby it has been provided that the contract between the advocate and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist. It is, therefore, very clear that a technical plea of contract having ended, that may not be raised to create an impediment to justice being rendered on substantive ground. Such a deeming fiction has been incorporated in the said provision of the C.P.C. Probably, the attention of the Court was not invited to such an amended provision.