P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.)Appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (e) Code of Civil Procedure to assail the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby his application under Order 22, Rule 4 as well as application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and the learned trial Court declined to set aside abatement of suit.
(2.)The facts, in brief, are that the appellant instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent Amrat Ram and one Rajesh for agricultural land of Aaraji No.822 measuring 0.16 hectare and Aaraji No.825 measuring 0.04 hectare. After submission of joint written statement by the respondent and Rajesh, Rajesh expired on 20.04.2015. The information about death of Rajesh was divulged by the counsel for the respondent before the learned trial Court on 07.07.2015. However, despite acknowledging the information, requisite application for bringing LRs of Rajesh on record was filed belatedly by the appellant on 05.11.2015 under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC. Besides that, an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is also laid. Both the applications were contested by the respondent and a detailed replies to both the applications were filed.
(3.)Learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, has observed in the impugned order that reasons for condonation of delay are not convincing, as parties to the litigation are closely related as they are distant cousins. Learned trial Court has further noticed that despite acknowledging information about the death of Rajesh, appellant has not shown promptness in laying application for bringing his LRs on record. It is in that background, the prayer made in the application under Order 22, Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure as well as under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act were declined and the entire suit was treated as abated.