RANCHI, India, Aug. 21 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 21:
1. Notice upon the sole opposite party has already been validly served, however, the sole opposite party has chosen not to appear in the matter, in view of that this petition is being heard in absence of sole opposite party.
2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 30.01.2024, passed in Title Suit No. 204 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div)-II-cum-Special Judge, L.A. Cases, Hazaribag, whereby, the petition dated 20.07.2023 filed by the plaintiffs under Order-XXII Rules 2 and 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for substitution of the legal heirs of plaintiff No. 1 has been dismissed by the learned court.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Title Suit No. 204 of 2018 was instituted on 12.10.2018 and the said suit was admitted and notices were directed to be issued on 25.09.2019 and the suit was further placed on 24.02.2020. He submits that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of the land measuring an area of 0.40 acres out of 0.80 acres in the Plot No. 348 under Khata No. 31 at village Masipiri, Dist. Hazaribagh. He further submits that on 24.06.2013, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 constructed boundary wall over the aforesaid land, then the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have purchased the said land from the defendant No. 2 and thereafter the suit was instituted.
5. Learned counsel submits that the defendants have appeared before the learned court on 04.08.2022. He submits that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No. 1 left for his heavenly abode on 02.04.2019, but due to inadvertence of the remaining plaintiffs and also due to closure of courts for more than two years due to advent of Covid-19 infection, the fact of death of plaintiff No. 1 could not be brought on record by the remaining plaintiffs. He further submits that on 30.05.2023, defendant No. 2 filed an information that plaintiff No.1 has died long ago before the learned court and thereafter on 20.07.2023, the plaintiff herein has filed a petition under Order-XXII Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC for substituting the names of legal heirs and successor of plaintiff No. 1 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay and also for setting aside the abatement. He submits that the learned court has not considered this aspect of the matter that for about two years, the Covid-19 pandemic was there and inadvertently that has occurred and the learned court only on the ground of delay, the said petition for substitution has been rejected. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 6. It is an admitted position that plaintiff No. 1 left for his heavenly abode on 02.04.2019. Defendant No. 2 filed an informatory petition on 30.05.2023 about the death of plaintiff No. 1. A petition for substitution under Order-XXII Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay and also for setting aside the abatement has been filed on 20.07.2023.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqI7gXVsnytFqrT1j7YHpXTFI9l0r4XZihabTFYiF06Yk&caseno=C.M.P./390/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010145642024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
