TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Umesh Kumar - Son 2. One of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1 i.e. Shri Umesh Kumar is already a party to the present proceedings as defendant No. 8. The contention of the plaintiff is that the right to sue survives against the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1 as their successors to the interests in respect of the suit premises. The averment made in the application is that the plaintiff was ignorant of the demise of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was informed about the demise of defendant No. 1 only on 13.11.2003 during the course of the court hearing. Although the application was to be filed within the stipulated time of 90 days, the said period had expired prior to the filing of the application. Thereafter the plaintiff has tried his best to get the name of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 within the stipulated time but it was difficult to obtain. 3. The plaintiff has admitted in the present application filed on 5th March, 2004 that the stipulated time of limitation had expired and the suit against defendant No. 1 had abated. It is contended that in view of the sufficient cause shown by the plaintiff for filing the present applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intiff was not proper, highly belated, without any sufficient explanation of delay and both the applications are liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is that the sufficient cause in filing of the application has been mentioned in paras 7 to 10 of the application filed under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC. He admits that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed more than four and a half years after filing of the application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC. The explanation given by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is that in the main application, the plaintiff has already mentioned about the setting aside of the abatement as well as the averment pertaining to the delay in filing of the application, therefore, filing of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is a formality and now it has been filed in order to avoid objections from the office. He further states that the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1 were not served in the main application for one reason or the other and some of the legal heirs were served by substituted service. As soon as the objection about the delay in making t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Order XXII Rule 4 and 9 CPC, specific prayer for setting aside abetment was made and therefore, no separate application was filed, I may refer to the case of Devinder Pal Sehgal and Anr. v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. JT 2001 (10) SC 463, Apex Court clearly laid down the above proposition. An oral prayer for condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act is sufficient. Formal application in writing is not necessary for granting relief under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 12. In the case of Devinder Pal Sehgal (supra) the Apex Court clearly laid down in para 7 as follows: We have perused the restoration application as well as petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same. It appears that in the application for restoration, all relevant facts have been stated not only to show that the plaintiffs had sufficient cause for non appearance on 24th August, 1988 but also to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. This is the reason why in the petition for condonation of delay, it has been simply stated that facts stated in the restoration application may be taken into con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the prayer to set aside the abatement of the suit in the main application in which there was delay of two months, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the present application is allowed. It is not in dispute that in another matter i.e. in C.S. [OS] No. 2243/1993 there was a delay in filing of the similar application and the said delay had been condoned by this Court. 16. In view of the settled law on the subject coupled with the fact that the defendant No. 8 who is one of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 is already one of the party to the present proceedings and the factum of abatement of the suit is already mentioned in the main application filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC wherein the specific prayer has been made that the abatement be set aside, the present application, in my considered opinion, should be allowed. 17. For the reasons stated in the application, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has shown the sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing of the application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 on record. The application is accordingly al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
