http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAM KALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEPUTY DIRECTOR (CONSOLIDATION) & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/09/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.