LexBANWARI LAL (D) BY LRS. &ANR. versus BALBIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 287
BANWARI LAL (D) BY LRS. &ANR.
v.
BALBIR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2015)
AUGUST 25, 2015
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
A
B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908..: Or. XX/{ - Manner in
which the legal representatives of plaintiffs or defendants
ought to be brought on record - Held: Rules of procedure C
under Order XX/I CPC are designed to advance justice and ·
. should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes
for punishing erring parties - On sufficient cause, delay in
bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on
record should be condoned - Procedure is meant only to D
facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the
same.
Sardar Amarjit Singh Ka/ra v. Pramod Gupta
(2003) 3 sec 212 : 2002 (5) Suppl. scR 350;
Sita/ Prasad Saxena (D) by Lrs. v. Union of India
and Ors. (1985) 1 sec 163: 1985 (1) SCR 659
-relied on.
Case Law Reference·
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 350 relied on
Para 10
1985 (1) SCR 659
relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
6567 of 2015.
E
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2013 of the G
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No. 100 of 2008.
A. Sharan, Sr. Adv., Viresh B. Saharya and Akshat
Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellants.
287
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 14 S.C.R.
'
A
R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., Santosh Kumar, Bundela,
Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave graQted.
B
2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 15.03.2013
passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the second
appeal being RSA No.100 of 2008 as abated and also the
interlocutory applications being CM Nos.6342/2008, 11811-
11813/2009 and 1998/2012 to bring on record the legal
C representatives of the appellants herein.
3. Respoildent-Balbir Singh filed a suit bearing No.369/
1986 against one Banwari Lal and Swaraj for declaration and
permanent injunction. Case of respondent-plaintiff is that he is
the owner of parcel of land measuring 600 sq. yards, bearing
D plot Nos. 5, 6 and 7 out of Rect. No.42, Kila No.5/1 situated in
the area .of village Karawal Nagar, Delhi in the abadi of Prem
Nagar Extn. lllaqua Shahara, Delhi. The aforesaid parcel of
land is also claimed by late Banwari Lal contending that the
land was purchased by him on 25.09.1985 from one Premlata
E and her husband Chander Prakash. The trial court initially
dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 13.02.1997. In the
appeal, the first appellate court set aside the judgment arid
decree passed by the trial court and the matter was remanded
back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh. Trial court
F considered the entire matter afresh and again dismissed the
suit bearing No.276/2004 of the respondenVBalbir Singh vide
judgment dated 23.09.2005. RespondenVBalbir Singh again
feeling aggrieved, preferred a fresh appeal bearing RCA
No.226/2005 against the said judgment and the decree. First
G appellate court by judgment dated 04.02.2008 set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court and allowed
the appeal of Balbir Singh. During the pendency of the first
appeal, defendant-Banwari Lal died on 30.01.2006 that is
almost two years prior to the date of judgment of the first
H
BANWARI LAL (D) BY LRS. v. BALBIR SINGH
289
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
appellate court. Even though .Banwari Lal has expired on A
· 30.01.2006, no steps were taken to bring on record the legal
· representatives of late Banwari Lal.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate
court, Banwari Lal represented by his legal representatives
and the second appellant-Swaraj filed second appeal before B
the High Court of Delhi. During the pendency of the second
appeal, appellant No.2-Swaraj also died on 02.12.2008.
5. Second Appeal itself was dismissed for non
.prosecution on 02.08.2010. Two applications were filed c
bearing CM Nos.17569-17570/2010 for restoration and
condonation of delay. On the basis of the said applications,
the High Court had passed an order on 02.02.2012 restoring
the second appeal to its original number. After restoration,
the second appeal w~s dismissed by the High Court on the D
following grounds:-
(i). The appellants have not taken steps to bring on record
the legal representatives of Banwari Lal either in the first
appeal or at the time when the second appeal was filed.
Second appeal was purportedly filed on bExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.