HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramabhadran, J. -
(1.) Gokul, appellant, died on 27-3-1953. On 11-9-1953, Laturia appellant, put in an application under Order 22, Rules 3 and 9, alleging that he came to know of Gokul's death only towards the end of August 1953 and, therefore, the delay in bringing Gokul's legal representatives on the record was due to circumstances beyond his control. An affidavit was filed by Laturia in support of the application. A counter-affidavit was filed by Panchku, respondent, disputing the allegations made in Laturia's affidavit and further stating that Laturia was present in the village, when Gokul died and he also took part in his obsequies.
(2.) On 22-3-1954, an order was made by this Court, directing the learned District Judge, Mandi, to record the evidence of the parties on Laturia's application and affidavit and the counter-affidavit filed by Panchku and to forward the same to this Court with his report. In pursuance of this order, the learned District Judge has recorded the evidence of the parties. He has also submitted his report dated 5-81954, wherein, he has expressed his opinion that Laturia knew of Gokul's death on the very day it took place.
(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing on the 22nd instant, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the correctness of the learned District Judge's finding. He, however, argued that the appeal abated only partially, i.e., with reference to Gokul and further that the appeal could proceed as far as it concerned Laturia. Learned counsel for the respondents .1 to 4 argued, on the other hand, that since Gokul's legal representatives were' not brought on the record within the period of limitation, the appeal has abated in toto.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.