RAGHUBIR MAHTO Vs. CHANDRA NATH KARMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been put up today on number of interlocutory applications. All have been filed by the Appellant, except I.A. No. 8683 of 2013, which has been filed by the Respondents. Different interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the Appellants are in effect seeking substitution of one or the other Appellants or the Respondents who have died during pendency of the appeal. In some of the I.As the Appellants have also sought setting aside of abatement and condonation of delay for seeking substitution of the deceased parties.

(2.) Through I.A. No. 8683 of 2013, Respondents have sought abatement of appeal itself on account of the death of several parties during pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants submits at the outset that the suit was preferred by the Plaintiff/Respondents against the entire villagers of Khurdh Jamira, P.S. Ramgarh, District Hazaribag ( Now Ramgarh). The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs giving reasons to the aggrieved Defendants to prefer the instant appeal. Since the Appellants were large number of villagers being 57 in number and Plaintiffs/Respondents also being 12 in number and other proforma Respondents also being 27 in number, likelihood of death of one or the other party during long pendency of the appeal is always an eventuality not within the control of either of the Appellants or the Respondents. That is why the death of one of the Appellants or the Respondents was not accurately known or informed to the counsel representing parties during pendency of the appeal. Therefore, it has been recorded in the order dated 5.12.2013 that both counsels appearing for the Appellants as well as Respondents informed the Court that some of the Appellants and the Respondents have died but not substituted through their legal heirs/representatives. In view of the information, learned counsel for both the side were directed to furnish details with regard to the respective Appellants and Respondents who were no more in this world so that petition for substitution may be filed. It was only thereafter that I.A.s, such as I.A. No. 9174 of 2013 seeking substitution of deceased Appellant no. 7, 11, 26, 33, 34, 41, 42, 46, 54 was filed while I.A. No. 9166 of 2013 seeking substitution of deceased Respondent No. 20,21,25 and 29 were also filed. Other I.A.s such as I.A. No. 1092 of 2014 seeking substitution of Appellant No. 17, I.A. No. 2737 of 2014 seeking substitution of Respondent No. 13 were also filed immediately thereafter. Some more I.A.s have been filed such as I.A. No. 6920 of 2016 seeking substitution of Appellant No. 53,who died on 12.2016, I.A. No. 5661 of 2017 for substitution of Appellant No. 46 have also been filed by the Appellants. Since the death of number of Appellants mentioned in I.A. No. 9174 of 2013 had taken place long back, beyond the limitation period for seeking substitution, separate prayer for setting aside the abatement of appeal as against those Appellants and condonation of delay in making such prayer have also been made through I.A. No. 5802 of 2017 and I.A. No. 1091 of 2014 respectively. Similarly in respect of I.A. No. 9166 of 2013 also separate application being I.A. No. 5801 of 2017 was preferred for setting aside of abatement of appeal as against deceased Respondents. In rest of the I.A.s, some applications praying for substitution have been made within time, while prayer for setting aside of abatement after condonation of delay has been made in I.A. No. 6920 of 2016. In I.A. No. 5660 of 2017 prayer for substitution of Appellant No. 53 and Appellant No. 32 respectively has been made after period of limitation.