BHANWAR LAL Vs. LATE MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Madan Lal filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh for injunction against the defendants -respondents No. 2 and 3 and defendant -appellants. It was dismissed. On appeal, it was decreed. The defendant -appellants filed the above noted second appeal in this Court on 18 -12 -1974. During its pendency, the defendant -appellant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal died on 31 -12 -1982 and the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 died on 30 -10 -1983. On 17 -4 -1986, applications were moved by the defendant -appellant No. 2 Kishan for setting aside the abatement of the apaeal, for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Bhanwar Lal and Madan Lal and for the condonation of the delay in moving them along with his affidavits. The legal representatives of the plaintiff -Madan Lal have seriously opposed the applications. At the time of the arguments, the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Bhanwar Lal was not pressed as he was sued in a representative capacity vide order -sheet dated 10 -2 -1988.

(2.) THE defendant -appellant No. 2 Kishan has stated in para No. 7 of his affidavit filed in support of his application for condonation of delay that he is an illiterate person, he was ignorant of the law under which the legal representatives of a deceased party were required to be brought on record within certain time and due to his bonafide mistake, delay occurred in moving the said application. The legal representatives of the deceased Madan Lal have not controverted these facts in their replies dated 24 -4 -1986 and 18 -8 -1986.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased Madan Lal that ignorance of law is no excuse and if it is accepted, every body would start putting it forward on every occasion. He also contended that the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10A, CPC do not extend the period of limitation for moving an application for bringing the legal representatives on record on the failure of the counsel of a deceased -party to intimate the Court about his death. He further contended that ignorance of law is not a sufficient cause within the meading of Order 22, Rule 9(2). C.P.C. He also contended that in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the earlier decisions reported in Union of India v. Ramcharan AIR 1904 SC 215 and Rangubai v. Sunderbai : [1965]3SCR211 of three Hon'ble Judges have not been considered and the judgments of the larger benches are to be preferred to judgments of smaller benches as laid down in Mathu Lal v Radhey Lal : [1975]1SCR127 and all the aforesaid rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are of benches of two Hon'ble Judges. He further contended that it has clearly been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukam Singh v. Bhanwar Singh ILR (1954) 4 Raj 351 (DB) that ignorance of law is no excuse and this decision has subsequently been followed in Chhitar Mai v. Sheo Narain 1976 WLN (UC) 174. He also relied upon Roopa v. Kanji 1983 RLR 698; Vidhya v. Ramdan 1987 (2) RLR 253 and Nanda v. Laxman AIR 1982 MP8.