Delay in bringing legal representatives on record is condonable upon sufficient cause, despite its length.

The petitioner-plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance against the original owners and later joined defendant No. 9, a subsequent purchaser of the suit property.

Defendant No. 9 died on 16 April 2017 without appearing or filing a written statement.

The plaintiff stated that he learned of the death from a public notice published on 17 January 2024 and applied on 4 March 2024 to condone the delay and bring the deceased defendant’s legal representatives on record.

The Trial Court rejected the delay application, relying in part on an asserted earlier application dated 29 July 2019. The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the delay in applying to bring defendant No. 9’s legal representatives on record should be condoned where the plaintiff stated that he learned of the death only through a public notice in January 2024.

Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the delay application should be set aside, including in light of its finding that an earlier application had been filed in 2019.

Order XXII, Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court, in the circumstances specified by that provision, to proceed without bringing the legal representatives of a deceased defendant on record where that defendant did not appear or contest the suit.

The Court also applied the principle that delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown; the length of delay alone is not decisive where the delay is not deliberate or attributable to inaction and no serious prejudice would result.

The Court accepted that the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of defendant No. 9’s death until the public notice appeared, and found no basis to treat the delay as deliberate or mala fide.

It also found that the Trial Court’s reliance on an application allegedly filed in 2019 was unsupported by the record; the respondents had not appeared to controvert the plaintiff’s counsel’s statement that no such application had been filed.

Although Order XXII, Rule 4(4) could have permitted the suit to proceed without the deceased defendant’s legal representatives, the plaintiff had sought their impleadment. The Court considered that allowing impleadment would not cause them serious prejudice.

It condoned the delay of six years, three months and four days and allowed the applications to bring defendant No. 9’s legal representatives on record.

The plaintiff was directed to file an amended plaint within one month, after which the Trial Court was to issue notice to the newly joined legal representatives.

The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.