Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two interim applications filed by Atlanta Limited, the original plaintiff in Suit No.175 of 2013, against Anil R. Agarwal and others. The first application, Interim Application No.589 of 2019, sought amendment of the plaint to delete deceased defendants and bring their legal heirs on record, including legal heirs of original Defendant No.1. The second, Interim Application (L) No.36100 of 2022, sought to set aside the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master rejecting an earlier Chamber Summons for non-removal of office objections, restore that Chamber Summons, condone delay, and set aside abatement of the suit qua deceased Defendant No.1. The court also noted a third interim application, IA No.2761 of 2022, seeking to implead proposed Defendant No.29 due to third party rights created by proposed Defendant No.1(a), which was to be heard separately. The suit was instituted in 2013. Defendant No.1, Anil Agarwal, expired on 01.05.2014. In December 2014, the plaintiff filed Chamber Summons (L) No.1987 of 2014 to bring legal heirs on record. On 31.03.2015, the Prothonotary & Senior Master directed the plaintiff to remove office objections and get the chamber summons numbered by 28.04.2015, failing which it would stand rejected under Original Side Rule 986. This conditional order was ex parte. By 28.04.2015, it was not complied with, and the chamber summons stood rejected; the plaintiff later contended the suit stood rejected/abated. The plaintiff's in-house advocate, Ms. Shraddha Mohite, had resigned on 05.02.2015, and the matter was lost sight of. Four years later, a fresh Chamber Summons (L) No.1661 of 2018 with final No.213 of 2019 was filed; on 11.07.2019, it was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh due to mistakes. On 18.10.2019, Interim Application No.589 of 2019 was filed but the plaintiff was unaware of the earlier conditional order. Only in November 2022, during preparation in a pending appeal, did the plaintiff discover the earlier Chamber Summons dismissal. Consequently, Interim Application (L) No.36100 of 2022 was filed. The plaintiff argued that lack of knowledge due to advocate resignation and subsequent oversight constituted sufficient cause for condoning delay and setting aside abatement; it sought leniency so that its claim against the deceased defendant's estate would not be ousted. The legal heirs of original Defendant No.1 strongly opposed, contending that third party rights had been created in the suit property. The court considered the procedural history, the explanation for delay, and the requirement under Original Side Rule 986. The provided text ends without recording the final operative order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plait and Legal Representatives - Substitution of Deceased Defendants - Original Side Rules, Rule 986 - Plaintiff sought amendment of plaint to delete deceased defendants and bring legal heirs on record; opposition raised by legal heirs of original Defendant No.1 was noted - The court examined prior procedural steps including earlier Chamber Summons, dismissal for non-removal of office objections, and subsequent discovery of that order (Paras 2-11). B) Civil Procedure - Restoration and Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause for Non-Compliance with Office Objections - Original Side Rules, Rule 986 - Plaintiff contended that non-compliance with conditional order dated 31.03.2015 was due to loss of sight after resignation of in-house advocate and absence of knowledge of earlier dismissal - The court considered whether this explanation warranted condonation of delay and setting aside of rejection (Paras 7-11). C) Civil Procedure - Abatement and Setting Aside Abatement - Death of Defendant and Lapse of Limitation - Original Side Rules, Rule 986 - Plaintiff sought setting aside abatement of suit qua deceased Defendant No.1 after chamber summons was rejected - The court considered whether abatement should be set aside given delay, lack of knowledge, and creation of third-party rights by proposed legal heir (Paras 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-compliance with conditional order dated 31.03.2015 should be condoned and Chamber Summons restored; whether abatement of suit qua deceased Defendant No.1 should be set aside; whether amendment to bring legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.1 on record should be allowed despite opposition; whether lack of knowledge and advocate oversight constituted sufficient cause for delay.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Legal representatives
- Setting aside abatement
- Condonation of delay
- Office objections
- Chamber summons
- Original Side Rule 986
- Third party rights
- Sufficient cause
