SANTU SINGH Vs. ABHEY SINGH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dt. 06/08/2008 passed by the trial court by which the applications filed by the respondent under Order 22 Rule 9 & 4 read with Section 151 CPC as well as Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been allowed on a cost of Rs. 1500/ - & Rs. 500/ - respectively by bringing the legal heirs of the respondent on record. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Moola Singh (defendant in the suit) died in the year 1997 and vide application dated. 27/09/2000 again it was intimated but then too an application was filed on 31/10/2001 and, therefore, there is abnormal delay of four years and even if we count from the date of application i.e. 27/09/2000, then too there is delay of more than one year whereas the time allowed under the statute is only of three months. He submitted that there is no reasonable cause for not moving application within time and it is a callous approach of the respondent which has been allowed by the trial court without any basis. He submitted that the suit already stood abated and there was no question of allowing the application.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that the respondent had shifted to Delhi and was not aware of the death. He further submitted that hand of the wife of the respondent came into crusher machine and was seriously damaged and, therefore, he was continuously busy in medical treatment of his wife and, as such, he was not aware as to what was going on in the suit. He further submitted that when the counsel informed, then action was taken by the respondent immediately and then necessary application was moved and, therefore, the respondent was prevented by sufficient and reasonable causes in this regard. He submitted that initially the counsel did not inform the respondent and for the mistake of counsel, the respondent should not suffer and substantial justice is required to be done and the trial court has rightly accepted the application on payment of cost and, therefore, no interference is need in the order impugned passed by the trial court.

(3.) IN the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any apparent manifest error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the learned trial court so as to call for any interference of this Court under its limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.