Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Umashankar Dhannu Koli (Dandge), filed a writ petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing his application for condonation of delay in bringing the legal representatives of original defendant No. 8 (Purushottam Vyankatesh Bramhan) and defendant No. 9 (Shriram Vyankatesh Bramhan) on record. The suit was filed in September 2008, but defendant No. 8 had died on 13.01.1995 and defendant No. 9 on 11.12.1995, both before the suit was instituted. The plaintiff claimed he was unaware of their deaths and came to know during the pendency of the suit. However, the application for condonation of delay did not specify the number of days of delay, the source of information about the deaths, or the date when the plaintiff gained knowledge. The trial court held that the application was vague and unspecific, and that the plaintiff was not diligent. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Assistant Government Pleader for the state respondents, found no infirmity in the trial court's order. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to disclose the source of information or the date of knowledge, which are essential for considering an application for condonation of delay. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Application for bringing LRs - The plaintiff filed an application for condonation of delay in bringing LRs of defendants who died before suit was filed. The application did not disclose the source of information about death or the date of knowledge. The trial court dismissed it as vague and unspecific. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for delay and was not diligent. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendants on record when the application was vague and unspecific.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
- Limitation Act Section 5
- Diligence of plaintiff
- Vague application
