GIBSON Vs. RAMJI DASS
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-15
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 31,1997

GIBSON Appellant
VERSUS
RAMJI DASS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

G.V. ARUNACHALAM AIYAR V. LAKSHMINARASIMHAM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAM CHARAN [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR VS. MAIDA KAUR [REFERRED TO]
BAKHTAWARI VS. SADHU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MULTANI RAM VS. CHUHARA RAM [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH VS. BISMILLAH BEGAM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.L.VAIDYA, J. - (1.)LATE Sh. Gibson had filed a suit for possession for the property in dispute as described in the plaint against Sh. Ramji Dass, defendant-respondent No. 1. Sh. Gibson asked for the decree in his favour and in favour of proforma defendants No. 2 to 6 (respondents). The trial Court decreed the suit. In an appeal before the first Appellate Court preferred by Sh. Ramji Dass, defendant-respondent, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and the appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 3.3.1994. Sh. Gibson, the original plaintiff preferred the present Regular Second Appeal No. 123/94 before this Court assailing the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court.
(2.)SH . Gibson died during the pendency of the appeal on 18th August, 1995. The present application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant was filed with the additional prayer of setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay in moving the application. This application was filed by Sh. Asha Ram proforma respondent No. 4. It was pleaded in this application that the sole appellant Sh. Gibson died on 18th August, 1995 during the pendency of the appeal and the right to sue survived. Following were named the legal representatives of the deceased-appellant:
1. Sh. Sunder Singh son 2. Sh. Devinder son 3. Ilawati daughter 4. Urmila daughter 5. Muni daughter.

It was also averred in the application that the delay in filing this application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased was due to the fact that one of the relations in the family was murdered and the family remained busy in investigation which was being conducted by the police and now since the investigation was over, this petition was filed after obtaining death certificate and the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased. The delay in filing the application as such was not intentional. It was also submitted in the application that legal representatives of the deceased appellant could not be brought on record as they were under great stress and strain because of the death of Gibson and also murder of the son of Asa Ram proforma respondent. It was pleaded in the application that interest of Asa Ram was similar to that of the appellant as they belonged to the same family and there was no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide on the part of the applicant for moving the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Gibson and for setting aside the abatement.

(3.)THIS application has been contested on behalf of the defendant- respondent No. 1.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.