Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) THE first of the aforesaid two applications filed on 12.4.2010 by the Opposite party No. 13 seeks order of dismissal of the proceedings, namely, Company Application No. 1 of 1991 as having abated completely. The second application is filed by the applicant -Official Liquidator for exempting him from substituting the legal representatives of the deceased opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 18 who had died during the pendency of the present application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that they have neither appeared nor filed written statement in spite of repeated service of notices and also publication of substituted service in different newspapers.
(2.) BOTH the interlocutory applications being interconnected have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. From the applications of the parties and replies thereto it has come out that opposite party No. 2, Shri Nandlal Poddar had died on 3.12.1990 prior to the filing of the application under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1991. The opposite party No. 8, Dr. Subodh Chandra Bhattacharjee is stated to have died on 2.4.1994. The opposite party No. 3, Ghamandi Lal Bansal is stated to have died on 19.3.2007. The opposite party No. 4 Rajendra Singh Lodha is stated to have expired on 3.10.2008. The opposite party No. 18 Kanjuli Gopal Krishnan Nambiar is also stated by the contesting opposite party to have passed away a few years ago. It is also stated that the fact of the demise of the opposite party Nos. 2, 8 and 18 had been disclosed in January, 2007 by opposite party No. 13 in the evidence by way of affidavit filed by him. Subsequently, the Official Liquidator by his OLR 10 dated 3.2.2010 had filed a report contending that under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, there was no need to implead the legal heirs of certain deceased opposite parties which was followed by the aforesaid petition.
(3.) IT is the stand of the opposite party No. 13 in his application that no notice had been served upon the opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 as there has been no recording of this Court of completion or otherwise of service on the said opposite parties. It is thus, submitted that the proceedings stand abated in law as against opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 in view of the failure on the part of the Official Liquidator to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased opposite parties within the statutory time frame provided under the Limitation Act read with the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;