- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the defendant � tenant Harak Chand under Section 100 CPC before this Court on 06.07.1994 against the concurrent decree of courts below for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of the landlord in respect of the suit shop in question ad measuring 7 x 10 ft. situated at Ladnu, district Nagaur.
(2.) A co-ordinate Bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 04.02.1997: "1. Whether looking to the width of the shop, any decree for partial eviction couldhave been passed in favour of the plaintiffs ? 2. Whether the learned Additional District Judge was competent to decide issue No.4 and 5 for reasonable and bonafide necessity as well as comparativehardship without referring and considering the evidence and documents on the record ?" During the pendency of the present appeal, the defendant � appellant Harak Chand is said to have expired on 28.05.2004. This fact has come on record only in the IA No.10159/2012 filed in this Court on 02.07.2012 with the stipulation that after the death of original tenant Harak Chand, the right to sue survived in his son Bhanwar Lal, who was carying on business in the suit shop with his father Harak Chand. It is stated in the application that the said Bhanwar Lal has also expired on 16.08.2008 and, therefore, his legal representatives may be taken on record.
(3.) ALONG with the said application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Rule 9 CPC, a prayer for setting aside of the abatement of the appeal has also been made and a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act namely IA No.10160/2012 has also been filed by the defendants � legal representatives, to which a reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff � respondent � landlord and the said applications and appeal have been contested.;