Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1403 - HC - Indian LawsSetting aside of the abatement of appeal and for substitution of the legal representatives of the both the respondent nos. 1 and 2 who died on October 27, 2007 and in the year 1999 respectively - Held that:- From the statements made in this application it is evident that the said Jayati Dey was well aware of the factum of the pendency of the above appeal. Further, when the respondent no. 2 had already died in the year 1999 and the respondent no. 1 had died on October 27, 2007, all within the knowledge of the appellant no. 5 deponent, there is no scope to accept the case of the appellants applicants that in March, 2012 Jayati Dey came to know that the respondents were trying to develop the suit property. The only other explanation put forth in this application is that the applicants were not aware of the requirement of law that steps were required to be taken for the substitution of the legal representatives of the said deceased appellants within the period of limitation and they had to file even the application for setting aside of the abatement of the appeal in so far as the said two deceased appellants within the period of limitation. In the instant case, the conduct of the appellants applicants are nothing short of negligent and the explanations put forth for condonation of delay as already discussed are not plausible. It is not the case of the appellants applicants that they are uneducated people. The appellants applicants are not rustic people residing far away from a city of Kolkata. It is not their case that they did not know the Advocate conducting the litigation on their behalf of that they were misled by their Advocate. It was the sheer negligence of the deceased appellants and the present applicants not to inform their Advocate of the death of both respondents. Thus, the explanation put forwards by the appellants applicants that they were not aware of the legal requirement of substitution of the legal representatives of both the deceased respondents within the prescribed time does not appear to be plausible or bona fide. Thus no merit in this application
|