RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. SUNITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is defendant no. 1 in Title Partition Suit No. 199 of 2012, is aggrieved of order dated 06.04.2016 by which the application filed for substitution of defendant no. 4 has been allowed.

(2.) Sole point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge legality of the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 is, that without condoning the delay in filing the petition for substitution it cannot be allowed and any order passed on such application is without jurisdiction and, thus, non-est.

(3.) Briefly stated, during pendency of Title Partition Suit No. 199 of 2012 defendant no. 4 died on 19.08.2015 and an application for substitution of his legal heirs and successors was filed on 30.11.2015. There was delay of 11 days in filing an application under Order XXII Rule 3, 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC. It is not in dispute that along with the application for substitution an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed by the plaintiff. Plea taken by the plaintiff is that on account of her illness she could not file the substitution petition within time. A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 would disclose that while allowing the application for substitution a cost of Rs. 500/- has been imposed upon the plaintiff. Cost of Rs. 500/- has been imposed for the delay in filing the substitution petition. The plea urged by the petitioner is apparently untenable.