CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 05 SHI CK 0183

Land Acquisition Collector and Another vs Sh. Puran Singh and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 25 May 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dev Darshan Sood, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.P. (M.) No. 359 of 2010 in R.F.A. No. 53 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 347 words

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—This application has been filed by the State praying for condonation of delay in filing application under order 22 Rule 4 & 9 of the CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of four deceased Respondents/claimants. The first Respondent Sh. Puran Singh died on 25.2.2008, second Sh. Durga Singh died on 27.3.2004, third Respondent Sh. Moti Singh died on 29.4.2007 and fourth Respondent Sh. Jeet Singh died on 2.12.2001. The averments made in the application reads:

The Assistant Engineer, HP,PWD, Sub Division, Oachghat remained busy to file SLP in Land Reference Cases of the same road in the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi because of time bound cases. Therefore, reply of applicant under order 22, Rule 4 & 9 could not be filed well in time in the Hon''ble High Court of HP. Ultimately, this case was listed before the Hon''ble High Court of HP, Shimla on 8.12.2009 and was dismissed for non-prosecution"

This is not a sufficient reason in law for condonation of delay. It is on record that on 29.7.2008 this Court noticed the factum of death of these Respondents. The Court ordered:

Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondents has stated that Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have died. Put up after four weeks

2.

This order was passed in the presence of the parties and on 8.12.2009, which is a period of more than one year after the order was passed, the factum of the death of the Respondents was well within the knowledge of the State. There is no explanation as to why the State did not take appropriate steps in accordance with law. I also note that a combined application has been filed for bringing on record the legal representatives (13 in number) of different Respondents who died on different dates. Naturally the cause of action would also be different.

3.

In these circumstances and on the pleadings, I do not find that the State has been able to make out a case for condonation of delay. This application is, therefore, dismissed.