Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAM KALA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (CONSOLIDATION) & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/1997
BENCH:
A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami
A.P. Mohanty, Adv. for the Petitioner
Ujjal Singh, K.P. Singh and Hassasin, R.C. Kaushik, Advs.,
for the Respondents.
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
K. Vankataswami
The petitioner Initially filed Interlocutory
Application (unnumbered) for bringing the legal
representatives of Respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the assumption
that those respondents were no more. However, when the
matter came up before the Court on February, 24, 1997, time
was taken to ascertain the particulars of the legal
representatives of the deceased respondents. Later on, it
was asserted that only respondent No.5 was dead and the
earlier application for bringing on record the legal
represenatives of respondents 4 to 7 had been filed on a
mistaken impression. The petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 1997
to withdraw the earlier application for substitution of
legal representatives. Thereafter, a fresh application,
I.A.No.3 of 1997 was filed for condoning the delay of nearly
five years in substituting the legal representatives of
respondent No.5 and I.A.No.4 of 1997 was filed for an
interim injunction restraining the respondents from
alienating, selling or transferring in any other manner the
suit property.
It is stated in the application for condoning the delay
of five years in bringing the legal representatives of
respondent 5 on record that that said respondent died on
27.11.92. It is seen from the said application that a Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.27592/94 was filed in the
Miscellaneous High Court. That shows that respondent No. 5
was dead even when the petitioner initially filed the Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition in the High Court. Likewise, the
present Special Leave Petition was also filed against a dead
person.
Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, brought to our notice Order XVI Rules 8 and 9 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the Supreme Court Rules. 1990 and contended that it is open
to the petitioner to file this application to bring the
legal representatives of the decased fifth respondent on
record in this Court even though fifth respondent had died
even before the matter was filed in the High Court.
We do not think it is necessary for us to go into the
correctness or otherwise of the said contention, though
prima facie on facts of this case the contention is not
sound. in the view we propose to take on I.A.No.3 of 1997.
The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
vehemently opposed the application for condoning the delay
of five years in bringing the legal representatives of the
deceased respondent No.5.
Perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for
the parties. We are not at all satisfied with the reasons
given in the application for condoning the delay of five
years in bringing on record the legal representatives of
deceased, fifth respondent. The reasons are neither
satisfactory nor reasonable. No sufficient cause has been
shown for condoning * the delay. 1.A.No. 3 of 1997 is,
therefore, dismissed. On that ground, 1.A.Nos.2 and 3 of
1997 are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are
dismissed.
When We asked learned counsel for the petitioner that
in the event of the application for condoning the delay in
bringing the legal representatives of the deceased fifth
respondent is dismissed and his legal representatives are
not brought on record, the cause of action survive against
the other contesting respondents. The learned counsel
unhesitatingly replied stating that the cause of action
against other contesting respondents would not survive in
that case. It that be so. the Special leave Petition is
liable to be dismissed as abated. Accordingly, the Special
Leave Petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the Special Leave
Petition is liable to be dismissed as abated. Accordingly,
the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Consequently, no
orders are necessary in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 and of 1997.