PUNIA BELDARIN Vs. BASUDEO BELDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 2164 of 2011

(2.) THIS interlocutory application has been filed under Order 22 Rule (iv) read with Order 22 Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the second appeal No. 319 of 2003 was admitted vide order dated 20.11.2008 and the respondent No. 3 died on 6.9.2006 leaving behind his widow Laxmi Devi and two minor daughters namely Puja Kumari and Chhaya Kumari as well as two minor sons namely Rahul Kumar and Kusal Kumar, the legal heirs and they are represented through their natural guardian i.e. the mother. It is submitted that the steps for filing the substitution application could not be taken within time as the respondents had not informed regarding the death of the aforesaid respondent. That the appellant is a rustic lady and she had no knowledge about the technicalities of the procedural law hence, she could intimate her counsel at Dhanbad on 14.7.2011, thereafter, the matter was brought to the knowledge of the counsel in the present appeal and the application was filed. It is submitted that there has been no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the appellant and the delay occurred due to lack of information regarding the death of respondent No. 3. It is submitted that if the delay is not condoned the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss.

(3.) CONSIDERING the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, sufficient explanation has been made out, accordingly, the delay is condoned. Let the name of deceased respondent No. 3 be deleted and the legal heirs be substituted in place of deceased No. 3.