S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) The appeal here stands abated consequent upon the death of the appellant Kartar Singh, and the application for setting aside abatement discloses no grounds to warrant grant of the prayer made therein.
(2.) A reference to the record shows that the appeal was filed by Kartar Singh, through his special attorney Darshan Singh and Bahadur Singh as far back as 23rd Dec. 1983. It came up for bearing on 6th Feb., 1984 when notice of motion was issued and the dispossession of the appellant was stayed In the initial stages, the matter was sought to be got settled by compromise Later, it appears, some differences between the counsel for the appellants also cropped up, and perhaps on this account on 30th Aug., 1985, the appeal came to be dismissed in default It was, however, restored to hearing on 9th May, 1986. The order of the court shows that restoration of this appeal was not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.
(3.) The appellant Kartar Singh died on 29th Sept., 1984. It is pertinent to note that Kartar Singh appellant and the other appellant Bahadur Singh were real brothers and were living in the same village and what is more, as mentioned earlier, Kartar Singh had been prosecuting this litigation through his special attorney Darshan Singh who is the son of the other appellant-Bahadur Singh and it is this Darshan Singh who now' seeks to get himself impleaded as legal representative of the deceased-appellant-Kartar Singh. In this situation, there can be no manner of doubt that Darshan Singh must have known of the death of Kartar Singh when it took place or at any rate soon thereafter. Be that as it may, the important point to note is that Mr. M.R. Agnihotri, appearing for the respondent stated at the bar that on 9th May, 1986 when the application for restoration of the appeal came up for hearing, he specifically drew the attention of the counsel for the appellant to the fact that Kartar Singh had died on 29th Sept., 1984 and it was on this account that the application for restoration of the appeal was not opposed. This statement was not controverted or contested by Mr. H.S. Bajwa, counsel for the appellant. Faced with this situation, however, he sought to wriggle out of it on the plea that an illiterate litigant should not be made to suffer for the negligence of his counsel. To support the point canvassed, he sought to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swaroop and others Vs. Mool Chand and others, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 355, where Deasi, J, in dealing with a matter relating to the impleading of the legal representatives not brought on record, within time observed, that the laws of procedure were designed to advance and facilitate justice; and were not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties or laws designed to trip up people A.N. Sen, J., the other Honourable Judge constituting the Division Bench in Bhagwan Swaroop's case (supra), however, had a different view to express by observing:- "It is no doubt true that a Code of Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends and it is not a penal enactment for punishment and penalty and not a thing designed to trip people up. Procedural laws are no doubt devised and enacted for the purposes of advancing justice Procedural laws, however, are also laws and are enacted to be obeyed and implemented. The laws of procedure by themselves do not create any impediment or obstruction in the matter of doing justice to the parties. On the other hand, the main purpose and object of enacting procedural laws is to see that justice is done to the parties. In the absence of procedural laws regulating procedure as to dealing with any dispute between the parties, the cause of justice suffers and justice will be in a state of confusion and quandary. Difficulties arise when parties are at default in complying with the laws of procedure As procedure is aptly described to be the hand-mind of justice, the Court may in appropriate cases ignore or excuse a mere irregularity in the observance of the procedural law in the larger interest of justice. It is, however, always to be borne in mind that procedural laws are as valid as any other law and are enacted to be observed and have not been enacted merely to be brushed aside by the Court Justice means justice to the parties in any particular case and justice according to law. If procedural laws are properly observed, as they should be observed no problem arises for the Court for considering whether any lapse in the observance of the procedural law needs to be excused or overlooked. As I have already observed depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case in the larger interest of administration of justice the Court may and the Court in fact does, excuse or overlook a mere irregularity or a trivial breach in the observance of any procedural law for doing real and substantial justice to the parties and the Court passes proper orders which will serve the interests of justice best. Excuse of lapses in compliance with the laws of procedure, as a matter of course, with the avowed object of doing substantial justice to the parties may in many cases lead to miscarriage of justice.";