LAWS(RAJ)-1981-2-25

LACHHMI DEVI Vs. S RAJMAL GOLECHA

Decided On February 06, 1981
LACHHMI DEVI Appellant
V/S
S.RAJMAL GOLECHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment and decree of a single Bench of this Court, delivered on November 16. 1971, whereby the learned Judge held that as the appellant failed to bring in time the legal representatives of Shri Brijlal on record, the appeal abated as a whole and in the absence of the legal representatives of Brijlal, the surviving appellants were not entitled to continue the appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this special appeal are that Raimal Golecha Ltd. instituted a suit on November 15, 1948 for rendition of accounts against Shri Ganesh Narain and Phoolchand in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur city. In the course of trial defendant No. 1 Shri Ganesh Narain died in August, 1951 and his sons Shri Brijlal and Dhanna Lal were brought on record as his legal representatives. Learned Senior Civil Judge, vide his judgment, dated 28th July, 1959, dismissed the plaintiffs suit against Phoolchand, but passed a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to have the accounts taken of the transactions between the plaintiff Company and Ganesh Narain in his capacity as a partner of the firm Gourilal Ganesh Narain Barrily.

(3.) After the receipt of the report from the Commissioner, a decree for Rs. 9,992.53 was passed in favour of the plaintiff against Dhannalal alias Ramdhan and Brijlal in their capacity as legal representatives of the deceased Ganesh Narain on 15th October, 1966. Legal representatives of Dhannalal alias Ramdhan filed an appeal in the High Court which was registered as S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 74 of 1966. Brijlal, one of the appellants, died at Calcutta on 22nd October. 1966. The above noted S. B. appeal was filed through Advocate Shri Shyam Behari Lal, who died on 1st of June, 1967. The appeal came up for hearing on October 10. 1967 and nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.