AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 206 wordsRekha Borana, J
In the present matter, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 read with Section 151, CPC was preferred for substitution of legal representatives of the sole respondent who had expired on 11.12.2020. The said application was filed on 24.08.2022. However, vide order dated 09.11.2022, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. The matter was then listed on 23.05.2023, 11.09.2023 and again on 20.11.2023 before the Court but no application has been filed till date. Today, learned counsel for the respondents prays for last opportunity to do the needful.
In the specific opinion of this Court, the time provided under law to get the legal representatives of deceased appellant/respondent to be substituted is 90 days from the date of death/information of death. Admittedly, the application whatsoever was withdrawn by the appellant on 09.11.2022. Since then, the matter has been listed thrice before the Court but till date, no appropriate steps qua deceased respondent have been taken. This Court is not inclined to grant any further time de hors the limitation as provided under the statute. The appeal is hence, dismissed as having abated.
Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.