Allowed

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. v. Ikram Hussain and Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2024I.A.(Civil)/2033/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applications for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, and substitution of legal representatives of a deceased respondent were allowed. The court relied on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling that Order XXII CPC provisions are a flexible handmaid of justice, condoned the delay, set aside the abatement, and substituted the heirs.

What the court decided

AI extract

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs… — Succession and Inheritance | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010111512003

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

I.A.(Civil)/2032/2017

¶5

ON THE DEATH OF SHRI PURAN NATH HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI SAIBA DEVI and ORS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶8

-----------Advocate for : MR. S K MEDHI Advocate for : appearing for IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶9

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2033/2017

¶10

ON THE DEATH OF SHRI PURAN NATH HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI SAIBA DEVI and ORS

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶13

-----------Advocate for : MD.N SEIKH

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

Advocate for : appearing for IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶16

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2031/2017

¶17

ON THE DEATH OF SHRI PURAN NATH HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI SAIBA DEVI and ORS

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶20

-----------Advocate for : MD.N SEIKH Advocate for : appearing for IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶21

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2034/2017

¶22

ON THE DEATH OF SHRI PURAN NATH HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMTI SAIBA DEVI and ORS

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶25

-----------Advocate for : MR. P C DEKA Advocate for : MD.A WAHED appearing for IKRAM HUSSAIN AND ORS

¶26

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Page No.# 3/5

05.03.2024

All these applications are taken up together by this common order taking into account that the matters pertain to condonation of delay, setting aside abetment, as well as for substitution of legal representatives of the respondent No.3.

¶31

I have heard Mr. N Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/applicants and Mr. T Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 as well as the legal representatives of respondent No.3.

¶32

This Court has also seen the grounds which have been assigned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abetment as well as for filing the application for substitution of the legal representatives.

¶33

This Court has also taken note of that when it was brought to the notice of the appellant that the respondent No.3 had expired, the appellant had duly filed an application on 04.08.2014, however, at that point of time, it was pointed out that there was a minor daughter of the respondent No.3, who ought to have also been substituted. This led to the withdrawal of the earlier applications and subsequent filing of fresh applications which are presently under consideration. It is stated in the application that for the said reasons, there was a delay in filing these applications and, therefore, it is the case of the appellants that the delay was never intentional.

¶34

Page No.# 4/5

¶35

This Court has also taken note of the judgment of the constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (dead) by LRs & Ors. Vs. Smti Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs. & Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272 wherein the Supreme Court had observed at paragraph 26 that the laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order XXII of CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto as per the Supreme Court would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination into an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order XXII are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law as laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Karla (supra) and applying the same to the facts as narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein the delay is required to be condoned on the materials which are placed before this Court and consequently, on condoning the delay, the abetment which had occurred on account of not filing the substitution be set aside and thereupon to substitute the legal representatives of the respondent No.3. Accordingly, all the

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

applications which are before this Court stands allowed and thereby the delay is condoned, the abetment is set aside in so far as the respondent No.3 and the legal representatives of the respondent No.3 whose name appears at paragraph 3 of IA(C)No.2034/2017 be substituted against the respondent No.3 as respondent No.3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii) and 3(iv).

¶38

All the interlocutory applications, accordingly, stand disposed of.

¶39

The appellants are directed to file a fresh memo of parties before the Registry of this Court by 07.03.2024 and on the basis of the instant order as well as the fresh memo of parties, the Registry shall make the necessary corrections of the cause-title of the memo of appeal and also update the same in the CIS.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. v. Ikram Hussain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. v. Ikram Hussain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Roy and 2G Ors. Vs Raghunath Gowala and 3 Ors.

Asmot Paramanik @ Asmat Ali Paramanik Vs Abdul Baten and Ors.

Gojendra Nath Rajkhowa and Anr. Vs Smti. Sura Prova Boruah and Anr.

Amala Barman Vs Narayan Barman

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. Vs Ikram Hussain and Ors.

T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Ltd. and 5 Ors. Vs Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.