Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 865 (JHR)

Parasnath Singh v. Sanjay Kumar Singh

2010-09-06

NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT : NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. 1. Parasnath Singh is the Appellant and one Pranpati Devi was Respondent No. 1. She died during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellant filed an interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 2635 of 2009, praying for deletion of the name of Respondent No. 1, stating that she died issueless. The said prayer was allowed and the name of Respondent No. 1 was deleted by order of this Court dated 12th October, 2009 at the risk of the Appellant. 2. The contention of the Appellant is that subsequently he come to know that the said original Respondent No. 1 had left behind two grandsons. 3. The present interlocutory applications have been filed for bringing on record the said two grandsons in order to substitute the original Respondent No. 1. It has been stated that said Pranpati Devi was living at village Rasulpur in the district of Balia (Uttar Pradesh). The Appellant now got information that she left behind two grandsons, being the sons of her predeceased son. It has been stated that in the earlier interlocutory application, the said fact could not be brought on record, as he could not know about the said two grandsons of Pranpati Devi despite due diligence. Though by order dated 12th October, 2009 the name of Pranpati Devi was deleted by the Appellant at his risk. It has been submitted that now after the discovery of existence of the said two grand-sons, if they are nor brought on record and substituted in place of original Respondent No. 1-Pranpati Devi, the appeal shall stand abated and the Appellant shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. It has been further submitted that this second appeal has been admitted by framing substantial questions of law on 26th February 2009 and there are good grounds in the appeal to substantiate the said questions of law. 5. It has been prayed that the order dated 12th October, 2009 be modified and the grandsons whose names and addresses are given in Para-7 of I.A. No. 3319 of 2009 be substituted after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, as prayed for in I.A. No. 3088 of 2010. 6. 5. It has been prayed that the order dated 12th October, 2009 be modified and the grandsons whose names and addresses are given in Para-7 of I.A. No. 3319 of 2009 be substituted after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, as prayed for in I.A. No. 3088 of 2010. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the said Pranpati Devi died on 25th January, 2006 at village Rasulpur in the district of Balia (Uttar Pradesh) and the Appellant could not know about her death as also about the existence of her grandsons within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. Learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the Respondents opposed the Appellant's applications. It has been submitted that there is delay of more than three years in filing the application and, in fact, said Pranpati Devi had died even before filing of the appeal. The Appellant had knowledge about her death and he deliberately avoided to bring the legal heirs of Pranpati Devi on record, so far. The Appellant had earlier filed interlocutory application for deletion of the name of Pranpati Devi, which was allowed by this Court at the risk of the Appellant. The Appellant has now filed this interlocutory application (I.A. No. 3089 of 2010) for bringing on record the grandsons of original Respondent No. 1-Pranpati Devi without giving satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the Respondents have opposed these interlocutory applications filed by the Appellants, denying the Appellant's contentions, they have not filed any such affidavit in opposition. The Appellant has explained the circumstances under which the applications for bringing the grandsons of Pranpati Devi on record could not be filed earlier. The reasons explained above do not appear frivolous in view of the undisputed place of residence of said Pranpati Devi in a remote village in the province of Uttar Pradesh. Though the Appellant should have been more diligent and cautious, when he had filed application for deletion of the name of the original Respondent No. 1, the explanation made in the application does not appear to be frivolous and deliberate. I see no reason as to why the Appellant shall suppress the fact, which may be ultimately affect his interest, even with a fatal consequence on his appeal. 9. I see no reason as to why the Appellant shall suppress the fact, which may be ultimately affect his interest, even with a fatal consequence on his appeal. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances indicated above, the aforesaid interlocutory explications are allowed, abatement, if any, is set aside, delay is condoned and the grandsons of Pranpati Devi, whose names and addresses described in Para-7 of I.A. No. 3319 of 2009, are allowed to be substituted and brought on record in place of Pranpati Devi subject to the condition made hereunder. By order dated 12th October, 2009, the name of the Respondent No. 1 was expunged without further prayer for substitution. However, no modification is required, as her name has been simply deleted by the aforesaid order. 10. Though may be mentioned on the part of the Appellant, for the said fault, the Respondents have been harassed and put to incur expenses in defending these applications, the prayer of the Appellant is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-to learned Counsel for the Respondents within a period of four weeks. 11. I.A. Nos.3319/2009, 3088/2010 and 3089/2010 stand disposed of.