GANPAT Vs. MANGLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.01.1975 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA' for short), and two orders passed by the Board of Revenue, namely order dated 20.04.1979 and 31.08.1979.

(2.) THE writ petition was filed by the petitioners against Mangla Ram and others in the year 1981. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, Mangla Ram, the respondent No. l, expired in 1983. Despite his death, no application was moved by the petitioners for bringing his legal representatives on record till 07.09.1988. The respondents raised an objection that the application for bringing the legal representatives was inordinately delayed by five years. And yet, no application for condonation of delay had been filed along with the application for bringing the legal representatives on record. Therefore, on 16.05.1996 i.e. after eight years of having filed the application for brining the legal representatives on record, an application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioners. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 24.07.1997, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application and held that the writ petition has abated. Therefore, the writ petition was also dismissed as having abated.

(3.) BEFORE deciding these two points, it is imperative that the factual matrix of the case be narrated in detail. Admittedly, the petitioners and Mangla Ram were residents of the same village. They had been involved in litigation since 1962. Therefore, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the petitioners knew Mangla Ram as resident of his village. Admittedly, Mangla Ram died in 1983. According to the application dated 16.05.1996, petitioner No. l came to Jaipur in September, 1986 to enquire about the case from his advocate. The advocate asked petitioner No. l whether all the parties are alive? Whereupon, the advocate was told that Mangla Ram has expired. According to the said application, the application for bringing the legal representative on record was filed on 07.09.1986. However, a perusal of the application clearly reveals that the said application was in fact filed on 07.09.1988 and not on 07.09.1986. It is also not in dispute that from 1988 till 16.05.1996 no applications had been filed for condonation of delay. For the first time, an application for condonation of delay was filed on 16.05.1996 and that too after the respondents had raised objection about the inordinate delay and about the lack of application for condonation being submitted. It is also admitted that after hearing both the parties vide order .dated 24.07.1997, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application for bringing the legal representative on record. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 24.07.1997 clearly reveals that both the facts and law have been discussed in great detail.