SUMITRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS has reference to the note of the Registrar General sitting in Lawazima Board on 9th May, 2002, while dealing with the substitution application filed by the appellants in terms of the Rule 98 of the High Court Rules. On perusal of the file, we find that the appeal was filed in the year 1999 and as per the contents of the substitution application itself (filed on 3rd April, 2002), the appellants admit that the respondent No. 5 had died before the appeal was presented in this Court but that they came to know of his death only "recently."

(2.) THE Registrar General in his not dated 9.5.2002 has note taken up of the substitution application for disposal because he felt that the same being time barred should be referred to the Court for appropriate order in terms of Rule 100 of the High Court Rules.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY , Rule 98 of the High Court Rules does relate to a situation where an appellant is permitted to apply for substitution of the legal representatives of any party named in the Memorandum of Appeal, who had died before the appeal was presented and to the extent for the amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal by the substitution of the person who might be the legal representative of the deceased respondent but this Rule by itself cannot supersede the specific provisions of the Limitation Act, which prescribe a specific period of limitation for filing an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased respondent. Article 120 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes a period of 90 days from the date of the death of the party as the limitation period for filing the application for substitution. This Article reads thus: - - 120. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, (5 of 1908), to have the legal representative of a deceased "plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party.