ACHHAR Vs. KOONDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the abatement order. The facts which gave rise to this appeal briefly stated are these: Against the decree of the Munsiff Ramnagar dated 32 -3 -2009 Achhar filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge Jammu. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge Jammu on the 22nd Besakh 2011 and defendant No. 1 was reported to have died and the counsel for the appellant wanted to get his legal representatives brought on the record. The respondents counsel raised an objection that Massu defendant No. 1 had died more than six months ago and the substitution application was not made within time. The appellants counsel submitted that he had no knowledge of the death of Massu defendant and wanted time to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record. No application was made by the appellant for sub -l stitutio and the Court ordered on 15 -4 -2011 that the appeal abated as against all the respondents because the decree was indivisible. The appellants made an application under O. 22, R. 9 praying for setting aside the order of I Statement. A preliminary objection was raised that the order was appealable and application under 0.22, R. 9 did not lie. This preliminary objection raised found favour with the Additional District Judge and he dismissed the application made by the appellants. Achhar has appealed against that order.

(2.) THE sole question for determination in this appeal is whether or not application under O. 22, Rule 9, for setting aside the abatement would lie before the Additional District Judge.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant has argued that the Additional District Judge had passed an order that the appeal had abated as the legal representatives of Massu were not brought on the record within the prescribed time and that the appellants had two remedies available to them, namely, to apply for setting aside the order of abatement under O. 22, R. 9, or go up in appeal against that order; and it is submitted that the Additional District Judge has erred in law in holding that the application under O. 22, R. 9 would not lie.