PRABHU RAM Vs. JEEVAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR applications have been filed by the applicant under (i) - Order XXII, Rule 3 CPC for being impleaded as legal representatives of appellant -Prabhu Ram, (ii) - Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for taking legal representatives of sole respondent on record, (iii) - Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC seeking setting aside of abatement on account of death of sole respondent Jeevan Ram and (iv) - application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing application under Order XXII, Rule 9 CPC.

(2.) THE litigation has a checkered history. The appeal was filed in the year 1981 aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 29.12.1981 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of contract was decreed by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal, on 13.2.1997, learned counsel for the respondent informed that the sole respondent -Jeevan Ram had expired. Whereafter an application was filed on behalf of the appellant for bringing on record the legal representatives, however, the application was not supported by affidavit and as such, the appeal came to be dismissed as abated by order dated 10.12.1997. Whereafter restoration application No. 114/2011 alongwith application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the appellant -Prabhu Ram on 19.8.2010 seeking restoration of the appeal. In the application it was indicated that the appellant/applicant became ascetic (Sadhu) and therefore, he had no knowledge or information regarding the death of respondent -Jeevan Ram.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the dismissal of the application the present applications have been filed by the applicants under Order XXII, Rule 3; Order XXII, Rule 4; Order XXII, Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the averments that they were not aware of the death of respondent -Jeeva Ram, the fact about pendency of the appeal before this Court and it is only on dismissal of the restoration application by this Court on 18.4.2014, the applicants became aware of the pendency of the appeal and the fact that they were required to get impleaded as party appellants, implead legal representatives of respondent and seek setting aside of abatement. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with similar averments has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing all the three applications.