- (1.)THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners-original plaintiffs challenging the order dated 22.1.08 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, East, Ajmer City, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit NO. 161/98, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 Mangi Lal under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC.
(2.)THE short facts of the present petition are that the present petitioners-defendants have filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit respondent No.1 expired on 4.8.2000. The petitioners filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Mangi Lal alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay occurred in filing of the said application on 8.12.04. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. G.S. Rathore for the petitioners that earlier the application was filed by the then learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on 31.7.03 seeking deletion of the name of the deceased Mangi Lal on the ground that no relief was claimed against him, however consequently realising the mistake of the said counsel, the application was filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Mangi Lal. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ram Sakal Singh Vs. Sosamat Monako Devi (dead) and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 277, he has submitted that the party should not suffer due to the mistake on the part of the counsel. He has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Rudrappa Vs. Shivappa 2005 CDR 176 (SC) to submit that technical objections should not come in the way to do full and complete justice between the parties. Relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Rath Sahu and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 1201 he has submitted that the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive liberal construction, so as to administer the justice between the parties.

(3.)HOWEVER, the learned counsel Mr. R.M. Jain for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners knew about the death of Shri Mangi Lal as back as in the year 2000, however the application for bringing on record his heirs was filed after a gross delay of four years without any justifiable reason. Relying upon the proceedings of revenue case between the same parties, Mr. R.M. Jain for the respondents submitted that the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Shri Mangi Lal was filed in the said revenue case in the year 2000 and the copy of the same was also received by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were aware about the death of Shri Mangi Lal in the year 2000. Relying on the decisions of this court in case of Phool Chand Vs. Ghisi Lal and Ors. 1984 RLR 132 and in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Virma Devi and Ors. 2002 (5) WLC (Raj.) 399, he has submitted that in absence of proper explanation given for sufficient cause, the gross delay in filing the application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC should not be allowed.