IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FA No.635 of 1979
Sita Devi Harnandika
Versus
Triveni Devi Bohra & Ors
-----------
28. 28.06.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent on the
interlocutory application No.115 of 2010 and I.A.
No.3970 of 2011. I.A. No.115 of 2010 has been
filed for substitution of the legal representatives of
the deceased respondent No.3. The office has
pointed out that the said application is time bared
and, therefore, I.A. No.3970 of 2011 has been
filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant had no knowledge
about the death of respondent No.3, therefore,
some delay has occurred. In view of the fact that
Article 120 provides for 90 days delay for filing the
substitution application and thereafter Article 121
of the Limitation Act provides 60 days for setting
aside abatement and thereafter only if setting
aside abatement application is not filed within 60
days, limitation is applicable.
Considering the above facts and
circumstances of the case, the limitation
2
application is treated as an application under Order
22 Rule 9 C.P.C. and both the applications are
allowed and the legal representatives of the
deceased respondent No.3 as mentioned in detail
in paragraph 1 of the substitution application are
substituted in place of the deceased respondent
No.3 after setting aside abatement and deleting his
name.
The appellant shall take steps for appeal
notice on the newly substituted respondents in
ordinary process within two weeks. Peremptory.
Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)