SHEONATHSINGH Vs. DHOKALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case Sheonath Singh made an application for leave to appeal to the supreme Court, and leave was granted by this Court. Thereafter, the appeal was declared admitted on the 2nd of November. 1954. Steps were taken to print the record, and the record was ready for transmission to the Supreme Court when one of the respondents Jhut Singh died on the 28th of February, 1955. Thereafter, an application was made to this Court on the 9th of May, 1955, under Order XVI, Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules for a certificate that Jhut Singh was dead, and that his sons Satidan-singh and Sardarsingh were his legal representatives and were proper persons to be substituted or entered on the record in place of Jhutsingh. It was however, reported by the office that such an application should have been made within 60 days of the death of Jhutsingh under Rule 14 of Order XVI of the supreme Court Rules and the application was beyond time. Thereupon, notice was issued on the 11th of October, 1955, to the respondents who objected that as the application had not been made within the time allowed, it should be dismissed and no certificate should be granted. It was also urged that the appeal to the Supreme Court had abated when the appellant failed to bring the heirs of Jhut Singh. on the record within sixty days of his death.

(2.) THEN on the 13th of October, 1955, Sheo-nath Singh appellant made two applications to this Court. In the first application, he said that the usual time allowed for bringing the heirs of the deceased party on the record was ninety days, and he therefore made the application within ninety days and had no idea that the rules of the Supreme Court required such an application to be made within sixty days. It was, therefore, prayed that as the rule prescribing limitation was framed bv the Supreme Court only recently in January, 1954, the earlier application of the 9th of May, 1955, might be treated as an application for setting aside the abatement. The second application of the 13th of October was to the effect that the benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act might be given to the applicant in case the application of the 9th of May, 1855, was not treated as an application for setting aside the abatement. On the same date, Satidan Singh and Sardarsingh, sons of the deceased Jhutsingh, also filed an application praying that the abate-ment be set aside, and the delay, if any, be condoned, and they be brought on record in place of their father.

(3.) ON these applications being brought to the notice of learned counsel for the respondents, an objection was taken by him that such applications do not lie to this Court.