LexKARAM KAUR versus JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 708 KARAM KAUR v. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4915-4918 of 2014) APRIL 28, 2014 [SUDHANSU :JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.22, r.3 and s.151 - C Suit filed by appellant's husband for declaration that he was entitled to vacant possession of the plot of land allotted to him - Trial Court decreed the suit - First Appellate Court reversed the judgment - Second appeal filed qy appellant's husband - During pendency of second appeal, appellant's husband D died leaving behind appellant (his widow) along with 2 sons and 3 daughters - Second appeal dismissed for non- prosecution - Later, appellant, claiming herself to be sole legal heir on basis of a Deed of Family Settlement, filed application for setting aside the order dismissing the second E appeal for non-prosecution - Appellant also filed application u/Or.22, r.3 CPC for bringing the LRs on record and application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay - All applications dismissed by the High Court - Justification - Held: Justified - High Court rightly rejected all the F applications - Present case not a fit case to condone delay, bring·,,the LRs on record and to set aside the order of abatement - Appellant is widow of original plaintiff and had knowledge of pendency of the second appeal - Her plea that she was told by her husband that the counsel would inform about the hearing of the application, cannot be ground to G entertain application for condonation of delay of more than seven years for preferring the petition for substitution - Moreover, purported deed of family settlement did not state H 708 KARAM KAUR v. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT 709 TRUST that the right to sue survived only on the appellant and could A not be relied upon to exclude the other legal heirs - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5. Land belonging to appellant's father-in-law was acquired by the respondent-Improvement trust, and in lieu thereof, another plot of land was allotted to appellant's husband. However, since vacant possession B of the allotted plot was not delivered to the appellant's husband, he filed civil suit for, declaration that he was entitled to vacant possession of the plot. The suit was C decreed by the trial court. On appeal by respondent-trust, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of trial Court. The appellant's husband then filed second appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, appellant's husband died leaving behind appellant (his widow). along with 2 sons and 3 daughters. The second appeal D was dismissed for non-prosecution. Later, the appellant, claiming herself to be the sole legal heir in whom the right to sue survived on the basis of a Deed of Family Settlement, filed application for E setting aside the order dismissing the second appeal for non-prosecution. The· appellant further filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing the LRs on record; an'd another application under SecUon 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. All the F applications were dismissed by the High Court. Before this Court, it was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that she had no idea about dismissal of the second appeal for non-prosecution; and also that she is an illiterate lady and was informed by her husband that G his appeal was not likely to be taken up for the next 20 years and their counsel would intimate the date whenever it is listed. The appellant further pleaded that she was not aware that the LRs were required to be brought on record after the death of her husband. H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. The present case was not a fit case to condone (felay, bring the LRs on record and to set aside the order of abatement. The High Court rightly rejected 8 all the applications. [Para 13] 2. Admittedly, the appellant's husband died on 14th December, 2003; the appellant is his widow and she had knowledge of the pendency ot the second appeal. The plea of appellant that she was told by her husband that C counsel would inform about the hearing of the application, cannot be a ground to entertain the application for condonation of delay of more than seven years for preferring the petition for substitution. A petition for substitution was filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 D before the Second Appellate Court. Respondent Nos.2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.