Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 920 -C of 1964, 70 -C and 71 -C of 197U and Regular him Appeal No. 75 of 1964.
(2.) A suit was instituted by Surain Singh Plaintiff -Respondent against Ganda Singh Defendant -Appellant for specific performance of a contract of sale of agricultural land, executed by him. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court Ganda Singh Defendant came up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court to this Court which was numbered as Regular First Appeal No. 75 of 1964. Surain Singh filed cross -objections against the decree which are numbered as Civil Miscellaneous No. 920 -C of 1964. During the pendency of the appeal, Surain Singh Plaintiff -Respondent died on August 7, 1969. An application was filed by the legal representatives of Surain Singh for impleading them as parties in the cross objections, on November 6, 1969. The application was barred by one day. Consequently, they also filed an application under Section 6 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The applications came up for decision before P. C. Join, J., who vide order dated June 14, 1970, condoned the delay in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives of Surain Singh on record in cross -objections and allowed the prayer for impleading themselves as parties. Learned Counsel for the Appellant filed an application under Rule 4 Order XXII, Code of Civil Procedure, on December 9, 1969, for impleading the legal representatives of Surain Singh deceased. He also filed another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The former application was numbered as Civil Miscellaneous No. 71 -C of 1970 and the later as 7C -C of 1970. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is an aged person of over 80 years and was not aware of the death of Surain Singh, Respondent. He was living at Rataul Bet where ,he property in dispute is situated. He has further stated that the Respondent wad living in Patti, District Amritsar, which was about 40 miles from his village. He was a healthy man and there was no reason to suspect of his death. In the circumstances, he prays that the delay may be condoned and the legal representatives of the deceased be ordered to be brought on record, his a settled principle of law that mere ignorance of death is not a sufficient reason for condoning the delay I am not satisfied that the reasons given by the Appellant are sufficient. He has further to show that there were sufficient grounds for ignorance not attributable to his negligence The law has cast a duty upon him to be vigilant. He has failed to show that he was vigilant enough in the present case. In the circumstances, the delay in filing the application cannot be condoned. Therefore, Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 70 -C and 71 -C of 1971, are liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant then argued that the legal representatives of Surain Singh had already been brought on the record on their application. He argued that the cross -objections were filed in the appeal. According to him, if the legal representatives had been brought on the record in cross -objections, it was not necessary that they should again be brought on record as Respondents. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Hukam Chand and Ors. v. Laxmi Narain : A.I.R. 1958 Raj. 247, Adiraju Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Paritala Lakshminarasamma, (1966) 1 A.W.R. 55, Mahagu Vishwanath Huske v. Bhagirathibai Shrawan Huske , 1972 Bom L. R. 785. I have given a thoughtful consideration to this matter I, however, express my inability to agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. As already mentioned, the application for impleading the legal representatives of Surain Singh deceased in cross -objections was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and consequently, an application under Section 5, Limitation Act had to be filed by them. P. C. Jain, J., while dealing with those applications condoned the delay for the purpose of cross -objections and impleaded them parties in cross -objections only. The appeal stood automatically abated on the date the applications for impleading the legal representatives had been filed. In such a situation, it cannot be held that the legal representatives became parties to the appeal, I get support for the aforesaid view from the observations made in Mahaqu Vishwanath Huske's case (supra). It was observed by the learned Judge that if the legal representatives are brought on record within the period prescribed by limitation in cross -objections, that substitution will ensure for the benefit of the appeal and not otherwise In all the cases cited by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the applications had been made by the legal representatives of the deceased Respondents for impleading them as parties in cross -objections within limitation. All the aforesaid caes are distinguishable In the aforesaid situation, the counsel for the Appellant cannot derive any benefit from the fact that the legal representative had become parties to the cross -objections on their application.;