KUNDAN LAL Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
J.M. MALIK, J. -
(1.) This order shall decide application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 read
with Section 151 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of the appellant.
The said application is also accompanied by an application for condonation of
delay in its filing.
(2.) The appellant expired on 7th June, 2004 The application under Order 22
rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on 26th July, 2004 The applicants
have enumerated three causes for condonation of delay, firstly, the registry had
raised certain objections and the application was required to be refiled,
secondly there was communication gap and it entailed some time and lastly there
were unavoidable circumstances such as removal of objections etc. The
application is supported by an affidavit sworn in by Smt. Rita Arora, one of the
legal representatives of the appellant.
(3.) The respondents have contested these applications. It is alleged that
the application is hopelessly barred by time. The application gives no reason
much less sufficient reason for late re-filing of the application under Order 22
Rule 3 CPC. The applicants have failed to explain the delay of over seven
months. The mode of communication to those places where the legal
representatives of the appellant reside, is very well established.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.