Madhab Gobinda Roy vs Bhubaneshwar Trigunait and Others

It is true that in this case respondent 1. died about 2� years ago and the appellant never ascertained that he was dead. There was, however, no particular reason why the death of the respondent should come to the notice of the appellant. He had already served him with a notice of the appeal in 1923 and it was in 1924 that the respondent died. The petition asking us to set aside the abatement sets out good reasons why the appellant did not know of the death of the respondent and shows how he first came to hear of his death in January last. Immediately after that he applied to set aside the abatement.

It appears that the persons, the appellant wishes to substitute in place of the deceased respondent, have been served with notice of this application and they have not thought fit to put in any affidavit or counter-petitions to dispute the accuracy of the facts which the appellant alleges; nor do they show why there was any particular reason why the appellant should be aware of the death of their father before January last. In these circumstances it seems to us that this is a proper case in which to set aside the abatement and direct that Guru Prasad Trigunait and Kali Prasad'' Trigunait be added as respondents in place of their deceased father.