S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) The controversy raised in appeal here concerns the abatement of the suit. The question posed being whether the records of the trial Court being in the High Court, in connection with a revision petition filed by the defendant against an interlocutory order passed in the suit, constitutes sufficient cause in terms of Order 22 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of the delay in seeking the setting aside of the abatement caused by the death of the defendant during the pendency of his revision petition ?
(2.) To narrate the background culminating in the situation that now confronts the Court, the starting point would be the year 1958 when Dr. Sohan Singh, the father of the plaintiff Dr. Ranbir Singh held a verified evacuee claim for Rs. 25,456/-. This claim was utilised by defendant Gurmukh Singh in purchasing evacuee property for a sum of Rs. 1,01,125.00. Disputes thereafter arose between Dr. Sohan Singh and Gurmukh Singh with regard to the claim of Dr. Sohan Singh utilised in the payment of the price of the property purchased by Gurmukh Singh. The matter was referred to an arbitration and on May 16, 1968 the award of the Arbitrator was made the Rule of the Court. By this award, Gurmukh Singh was required to refund Dr. Sohan Singh's money within two months, failing which it was held that Dr. Sohan Singh would have a proportionate share in the property purchased by Gurmukh Singh. In other words, he would then have 25456 and 101125 share in that property.
(3.) The order making the award of the Arbitrator, the Rule of the Court, was challenged by Gurmukh Singh in first appeal from order 100 of 1968. This was eventually dismissed by the High Court on Oct. 15, 1971.;