Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 183 (DEL)

ASHOK KUMAR JAGGI v. RAM SAWRUP SHARMA

2006-01-25

SANJIV KHANNA

body2006
( 1 ) THE present, civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14. 1. 2003 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 22 rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure. 1908 (hereinafter referred as Code for short ). ( 2 ) LEARNED trial court has held that the petitioner herein had not specified and stated the date on which defendant No. l had died and. therefore, the aforesaid application does not have any merit and was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no intimation whatsoever as provided under Order 22 Rule 10a of the code of Civil Procedure. 1908 was given about the death of defendant No. 1 and the petitioner had no knowledge that the said defendant had expired. He has further brought to my notice that only on 22. 7. 199,7. an intimation was given and the petitioner was informed about the death of defendant no. 1. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 2 does not dispute these facts. It is. however, submitted that defendant No. l had expired on 9. 10. 1996 and the application for bringing on record the legal heirs was filed only on 7. 7. 1997 and thus it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is. justified. ( 4 ) DURING the course of arguments, I asked the counsel for the parties whether at any time after 9. 10. 1996, death of defendant no. 1 it was brought to the. notice of the trial court by the learned counsel for the said defendant or any of the parties. Both the counsel state that the factum of death of defendant No. 1 was not brought to the notice of the trial court though several hearings were held. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that information and intimation about the death of defendant No. 1 was furnished only on 22. 7. 1997 in compliance with Order 22 Rule 10a of the Code. By that time the petitioner had already moved an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of defendant No. 1 ( 5 ) EVEN if the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of defendant No. 1 was belated and beyond limitation, learned trial court would have given an opportunity to the petitioner to file on application for condonation of delay. There is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner that he had no knowledge about death of defendant No. 1. It is also admitted that defendant No. l is not related to the petitioner ( 6 ) KEEPING in view the facts stated above, and as the matter has remained pending in this court for last three years and the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the code had remained pending in the trial court for six years. I allow this revision petition. The impugned order dated 14. 1. 2003 is set aside. Application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the code filed by the petitioner is allowed. Legal heirs, of defendant No. l are brought on record. Delay, if any. in moving the application is also deemed to be condoned. No costs. ( 7 ) PARTIES to appear before the trial court on 27. 2. 2006, it is clarified that in case, any of the defendants do not appear before the trial court on the said date, notices will be issued to the said defendants. The civil revision petition is disposed of. Dasti. .