KANTABEN BABULAL BORAD Vs. GSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Total ignorance of law is exhibited by the learned Assistant Judge, Rajkot in passing the order dated 30.09.2002 below exh.51 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1997, which is impugned in this petition.

(2.) As the original appellant, one Babulal Nathalal, who preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1997, died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal heirs, the present petitioners herein, submitted an application before the learned Judge requesting the Court to allow them to be brought on record under Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge allowed the said application and accordingly, the present petitioners were permitted to be brought on the record of the said appeal. However, it seems that the title of the appeal memo was not corrected accordingly, showing the names of the present petitioners who were brought on record by virtue of the earlier order passed by the appellate Judge. The petitioner thereafter gave an application at exh. 51 requesting the court to permit them to amend the appeal memo, as according to the petitioner, the application for bringing heirs was granted by the District Court on 13.12.2000 by passing the order below exh. 45 but corresponding amendment was not carried in the appeal memo. It was, therefore, requested to extend the time to carry out the said amendment.

(3.) The learned Assistant Judge, Rajkot, by his impugned order dated 30th September 2002, rejected the said application at exh. 51. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the application for bringing heirs was granted by the Court on 13.12.2000 and as per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioners to amend the said pleadings within 14 days from the date of the order. The appellate Court, accordingly, rejected the said application. The said order is impugned in this petition.