Ram Kala
Vs. Deputy Director (Consolidation) & Ors [1997] INSC 716 (9 September 1997)
A. S.
ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
Present:
Hon'ble
Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami A.P. Mohanty, Adv.
for the Petitioner Ujjal Singh, K.P. Singh and Hassasin, R.C. Kaushik, Advs.,
for the Respondents.
O R D
E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
K. Vankataswami
The petitioner Initially filed Interlocutory Application (unnumbered) for
bringing the legal representatives of Respondent Nos.4 to 7 on the assumption
that those respondents were no more. However, when the matter came up before
the Court on February,
24, 1997, time was
taken to ascertain the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased
respondents. Later on, it was asserted that only respondent No.5 was dead and
the earlier application for bringing on record the legal represenatives of
respondents 4 to 7 had been filed on a mistaken
impression. The petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 1997 to withdraw the earlier
application for substitution of legal representatives. Thereafter, a fresh
application, I.A.No.3 of 1997 was filed for condoning the delay of nearly five
years in substituting the legal representatives of respondent No.5 and I.A.No.4
of 1997 was filed for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from
alienating, selling or transferring in any other manner the suit property.
It is
stated in the application for condoning the delay of five years in bringing the
legal representatives of respondent 5 on record that that said respondent died
on 27.11.92. It is seen from the said application that a Civil Miscellaneous
Writ Petition No.27592/94 was filed in the Miscellaneous High Court. That shows
that respondent No. 5 was dead even when the petitioner initially filed the
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition in the High Court. Likewise, the present
Special Leave Petition was also filed against a dead person.
Mr. Mohanty,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, brought to our notice Order XVI
Rules 8 and 9 of the Supreme Court Rules. 1990 and contended that it is open to
the petitioner to file this application to bring the legal representatives of
the decased fifth respondent on record in this Court even though fifth
respondent had died even before the matter was filed in the High Court.
We do
not think it is necessary for us to go into the correctness or otherwise of the
said contention, though prima facie on facts of this case the contention is not
sound. in the view we propose to take on I.A.No.3 of 1997.
The
learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents vehemently opposed the
application for condoning the delay of five years in bringing the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.5.
Perused
the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are not at all
satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condoning the delay of
five years in bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased, fifth
respondent. The reasons are neither satisfactory nor reasonable. No sufficient
cause has been shown for condoning *** the delay. 1.A.No. 3 of 1997 is,
therefore, dismissed. On that ground, 1.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 1997 are liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
When
We asked learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event of the
application for condoning the delay in bringing the legal representatives of
the deceased fifth respondent is dismissed and his legal representatives are
not brought on record, the cause of action survive against the other contesting
respondents. The learned counsel unhesitatingly replied stating that the cause
of action against other contesting respondents would not survive in that case. It
that be so. the Special leave Petition is liable to be dismissed as abated.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the Special
Leave Petition is liable to be dismissed as abated. Accordingly, the Special
Leave Petition is dismissed. Consequently, no orders are necessary in I.A.Nos.4
and 5 and of 1997.
Back
