Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a writ petition filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa concerning a property dispute among family members. The petitioners, including Datta Atchut Dabolkar and others, sought relief against the respondents regarding certain property rights. During the pendency of the petition, several respondents died, and the petitioners failed to bring their legal representatives on record within the limitation period. The court noted that the petition had abated due to non-compliance with Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court dismissed the petition as abated, observing that no application for condonation of delay was filed. The decision was based on the procedural requirement that legal representatives must be substituted within the prescribed time to continue the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Suit - Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 CPC - Failure to bring legal representatives of deceased parties on record within limitation period leads to abatement of the suit or petition - The court held that the petition abated as the petitioners failed to take steps to bring legal representatives of deceased respondents on record within the prescribed period, and no application for condonation of delay was filed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition has abated due to failure to bring legal representatives of deceased parties on record within the prescribed period.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as abated due to failure to bring legal representatives of deceased respondents on record within the prescribed period.
Law Points
- Abatement of proceedings
- Legal representatives
- Condonation of delay
- Order 22 CPC
