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
17 paragraphs · 371 wordsT.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—These applications are for setting aside the abatement and for condonation of delay and to bring on record the legal
representatives of the deceased appellants 2 and 3. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance restraining the Amritsar Improvement Trust
from dispossessing them from Plot No. 47. According to the defendants the said plot had been allotted to their father Nand Singh. That suit has
been dismissed by both the Courts below. The appellant filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant died and his legal
representatives were brought on record within time. Thereafter, the appellants 2 and 3 died in the year 1986 and 1988. These applications have
been filed in the year 1997 and are opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the applications have been filed after more than
10 years, after the death of the appellants 2 and 3 and that the delay has not been explained and the appeal stands abated and, therefore, these
applications are liable to be dismissed.
On the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no abatement. The plaintiffs are seeking the suit property through their father Nand
Singh. The legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, the first appellant were already brought on record. The fourth appellant is the son of the appellant
No. 1. Thus the state has been properly represented. When the right to sue survives to the surviving appellants, there is no question of abatement
of the appeal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that application for setting aside the application of the abatement is unnecessary. The applicants who
are the legal representatives of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming the property by devolution through their father. In such a case provisions of
Order 22 Rule 10 are attracted and they can be brought on record at any time. In these circumstances, I direct that the legal representatives of
deceased appellants 2 and 3 be brought on record as appellants in this appeal.
This appeal is of the year 1981. It is pending for the last 12 years. I, therefore, direct the Registry to list the appeal for final hearing on
10.3.1998.
