Devi Vs. Saro Devi & Ors  Insc 348 (1 August 2003)
Lahoti & Ashok Bhan.
O R D
E R (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.55 of 2000)
of details the bare necessary facts for decision in this appeal are noted
hereinafter. As regards the very same immovable property, two suits came to be
filed. One suit was filed by the appellant seeking eviction of one Churaman Pasi
alleging him to be a tenant in the suit property. Another suit, in the nature
of cross suit, was filed by heirs of Churaman Pasi disputing the title of the
appellant. Both the suits were tried together and disposed of by one common
judgment resulting into two decrees based on one judgment. The appellant lost
in both the suits.
filed two appeals registered as TA No.9/80 and TA No. 10/80 in the District
Court. In TA No.9/80 Churaman Pasi was the sole respondent. He died. The
appellant moved an application seeking to bring on record the legal
representatives of Churaman Pasi and seeking condonation of delay in filing the
application, also seeking setting aside of abatement. The application was
rejected and consequently the appeal was also dismissed as having abated.
Feeling aggrieved by such judgment of the District Court, the appellant filed
an appeal in the High Court which, unfortunately, came to be dismissed in
default of appearance. The appellant moved an application for restoration of
the appeal in the High Court which application was registered as MJC 210/97.
This application too came to be dismissed by the High Court by a brief order a
reading whereof indicates that the High Court looked into the merits of the
appeal also and formed an opinion that restoration was unmerited. This appeal,
by special leave, has been filed against the above-said order of the High
have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the Title
Appeal No.9/80 could not have been dismissed as having abated for failure to
bring on record the legal representatives of the respondent Churaman Pasi and
this we say for two reasons. Firstly, the application, duly supported by an
affidavit, did make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay, setting
aside the abatement, if any, and bringing the legal representatives of the
deceased-respondent on record. It is well settled that a liberal and not too
rigid, technical or pedantic approach, has to be adopted in such like matters
as an opportunity of hearing on merits, should not be denied to a litigant
unless a case of gross negligence or contumacy is made out. Secondly, in the
background of the facts of the case, the two appeals were to be heard together
being two appeals arising out of decrees in cross suits based on the same
common judgment. In one of the appeals, the legal representatives, already
available on record, were well aware of the litigation and their defence.
Bringing them on record in the connected appeal was a matter of almost a
formality which should have been permitted once an application in that regard
the appeal as abated has occasioned a grave failure of justice and just for
technicality. Such dismissal of appeal cannot be sustained.
have formed an opinion that the District Court could not have dismissed TA
No.9/80 as abated and the application for bringing the legal representatives of
the deceased-respondent should have been allowed, it will be futile to remand
the matter back to the High Court by restoring the appeal pending before it and
to deal with the question of abatement.
backdrop of the above-said facts, the appeal is allowed. The dismissal of MJC
No.210/97 as also the dismissal of the appellant's appeal in the High Court are
both set aside.
appeal in the High Court shall stand restored and allowed and then treated as
disposed of. TA No.9/80 in the District Court shall stand restored on the file
of the District Court. Substitution of legal representatives in place of the
deceased-respondent shall be permitted. TA No.9/80 and TA No. 10/80 shall,
both, then be taken up for hearing and decision in accordance with law.
appeal is allowed. No order as to the costs.