AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) The above interlocutory applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 540 days and under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC, for substitution of the name of legal heir of deceased respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the respondent no.3, namely, Sikandar Toppo, who was the owner of the Bus being No. JH -07A -2915 died on 29.10.2012.
(2.) The information regarding death of Sikandar Toppo was sent by the father of the deceased respondent no.3 along with the letter of Mukhiya which is dated 19.10.2013. It is submitted that the appellant came to know about the death of respondent no.3, when the case was listed on 8.1.2014. The Court had directed to the appellant to take appropriate steps for bringing on record the legal heirs/ representatives of the deceased respondent no.3.
(3.) That the letter regarding the death of respondent no.3 was handed over to the counsel in the court below by the insurance company, but the name of the legal heirs/ representatives was not available on record neither the court below was informed regarding the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus in the absence of name of legal heirs, the insurance company decided to file the present substitution petition for substituting the name of the father as the legal heir of the deceased respondent no.3. It is submitted that there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the appellant and the delay has occurred due to the above reason.;