SUNIL TIWARY Vs. PEYARE MOHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 namely Peyare Mohan Prasad who died in the year 2017 during the pendency of this appeal leaving behind his only seven legal representatives whose names, parentages and addresses have been mentioned in para-3 of the instant interlocutory application and also for condoning the delay and to set aside the abatement, if any, in filing the petition for substitution. It is next submitted that the appellants were not aware about the death of the respondent No.1 namely Peyare Mohan Prasad immediately after his death and only after the copy of the Interlocutory Application filed under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure being served upon the appellants in March, 2022, the appellants could know about the death of the said respondent No.1 namely Peyare Mohan Prasad and thereafter after collecting the information, the petition for substitution was filed and because of the same, there was a delay in filing the petition for substitution. It is further submitted that the delay caused in filing the petition for substitution is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that unless the delay in filing the petition for substitution is condoned and abatement, if any, is set aside, the appellants will be highly prejudiced.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid facts, the delay in filing the petition for substitution is condoned, abatement, if any, is set aside and the prayer for substitution of only seven legal representative of the deceased respondent No.1 namely Peyare Mohan Prasad, as prayed for, is allowed.