Kundan Lal vs Subhash Chander and Others

J.M. Malik, J.—This order shall decide application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of the appellant. The said application is also accompanied by an application for condensation of delay in its filing.

The appellant expired on 7th June, 2004. The application under Order 22 rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on 26th July, 2004. The applicants have enumerated three causes for condensation of delay, firstly, the registry had raised certain objections and the application was required to be refiled, secondly there was communication gap and it entailed some time and lastly there were unavoidable circumstances such as removal of objections etc. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn in by Smt. Rita Arora, one of the legal representatives of the appellant.

The respondents have contested these applications. It is alleged that the application is hopelessly barred by time. The application gives no reason much less sufficient reason for late re-filing of the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The applicants have failed to explain the delay of over seven months. The mode of communication to those places where the legal representatives of the appellant reside, is very well established.

I have heard counsel for the parties. I am of the view that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in moving the application for substitution of the legal representatives. It is very difficult to contact a person living in a far off area like Maharashtra. The above said application is supported by authorities, cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant reported in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 RLR (SC) 132, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. 1996 (1) RLR 735, Niamat Kaur v. Union of India 1973 RLR 35 and Bhagwan Swaroop and Others Vs. Mool Chand and Others, .

In view of the discussion above, I allow application for condensation of delay as also the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the appellant. Amended memo of parties be filed within a fortnight. CM Nos. 5134/2005 and 5135/2005 are accordingly allowed.

EFA No. 5/1994

From perusal of the order sheets, I find that though the appeal was admitted vide order dated 5th December, 1994, yet no substantial questions of law were formulated by the Court. In these circumstances, record of the lower court as well as of the first appellate court be requisitioned. Case is fixed for admission/formulation of substantial questions of law, if any, on 3rd September, 2007.