PURUSHOTTAM DAS GAJJAR Vs. TATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interlocutory Application No. 1888 of 2011 filed for substitution of names of Gunwanti Devi, Lata P. Gajjar and Manoj Kumar P. Gajjar, who claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of Purushottam Das Gajjar, the original petitioner of this case. It is stated that the original petitioner namely Purushottam Das Gajjar died on 02.01.200.'5 and the application for substitution has been filed on 11.10.2011. In the said application no explanation given as to why there is delay in filing the substitution petition.

(2.) However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the S.145 Cr.P.C. proceeding Lata P. Gajjar and Manoj Kumar P. Gajjar were also petitioners, therefore, this revision can proceed on their behest. It is further submitted that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C., which prescribed period of limitation for filing substitution petition. Accordingly, it is submitted that the substitution petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Kailash Prasad Deo, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that Lata P. Gajjar and Manoj Kumar P. Gajjar were petitioners in the court below, but after passing of final order they did not challenge impugned order and had not filed revision within the limitation period. Under the said circumstance, if they will be allowed to substitute the deceased petitioner (Purushottam Das Gajjar) then the same will amount to allowing him to file revision application beyond the period of limitation, prescribed under the Limitation Act. It is submitted that a substitution petition can be filed as per the judgment of Supreme Court, but the same cannot be entertained after delay of six years, that too, without any explanation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the interlocutory application is liable to be rejected.