Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1693 (JHR)

Feku Mahato v. Miliya Devi

2012-12-07

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
Order I.A. No. 1332/2005 In this application, the appellants have prayed for allowing substitution of heirs and legal representatives of appellant no. 2 after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any. 2. It has been stated that the appellant no. 2-Gunia Devi died on 6.7.2004. The appellants were not aware about the requirement of brining on record the heirs and legal representatives of Gunia Devi. It is only after conversation of their counsel in connection with the hearing of the appeal in admission, when the appellants came to know that they are required to file application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of appellant no. 2, they immediately thereafter instructed their counsel and filed application for substitution and also for condonation of delay. 3. It has been submitted that there was no deliberate negligence or wilful violation for not taking steps for substitution of the heirs and legal representative of appellant no. 2. The appellants were prevented from doing so under the aforesaid circumstances beyond their control. 4. The respondents have opposed the appellants' prayer. 5. It has been submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing substitution petition and there is no proper and sufficient explanation for such a long delay. The reasons are not acceptable and the appellants' application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The appellants have filed the instant application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of appellant no. 2. The death of appellant no. 2 is not denied. So far as the other reasons are concerned, though the respondents have said that explanation has been made only to cover up the long period, no affidavit in opposition has been filed. 8. Considering the reasons explained in the application, this Court is satisfied that there was no wilful negligence on the part of the appellants and that they were prevented from filing application for substitution earlier under the aforesaid circumstances beyond their control. 9. Considering the above, this application is allowed. The delay in filing application for substitution is condoned. Abatement is set aside and the prayer for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of appellant no. 2 is allowed. 10. This application stands disposed of. I.A. No. 3618/2009 with I.A. No. 3619/2009 11. In these applications, the appellants have prayed for allowing substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent no. Abatement is set aside and the prayer for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of appellant no. 2 is allowed. 10. This application stands disposed of. I.A. No. 3618/2009 with I.A. No. 3619/2009 11. In these applications, the appellants have prayed for allowing substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent no. 2 after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any. 12. It has been stated that the respondent no. 2-Sona Mahato died on 12.6.2005 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives, whose names and addresses are described in para 3 of the application (I.A. No. 3618/2009). 13. It has been submitted that there was no deliberate negligence or wilful violation in not taking steps for substitution of the heirs and legal representative of respondent no. 2. The appellants were prevented from doing so under the aforesaid circumstances beyond their control. 14. The respondents have opposed the appellants' prayer. 15. It has been submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing substitution petition and there is no proper and sufficient explanation for such a long delay. The reasons are not acceptable and the appellants' applications are liable to be rejected. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. The appellants have filed the instant application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent no. 2. The death of respondent no. 2 is not denied. So far as the other reasons are concerned, though the respondents have said that explanation has been made only to cover up the long period, no affidavit in opposition has been filed. 18. Considering the reasons explained in the applications, this Court is satisfied that there was no wilful negligence on the part of the appellants and that they were prevented from filing application for substitution earlier under the aforesaid circumstances beyond their control. 19. Considering the above, these applications are allowed the delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned. Abatement is set aside and the prayer for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of respondent no. 2 is allowed. 20. These applications stand disposed of. Applications disposed of.