Second appeal abated on the death of the sole appellant; heirs sought condonation of a 2 years 8 months delay, setting aside of abatement and substitution. The court held the Covid-19 exclusion period did not apply since death occurred after it, found no sufficient cause, rejected all applications and dismissed the appeal as abated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SECOND APPEAL No.17 of 1993
======================================================
JAINATH SINGH
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
KARPALO DEVI and ORS ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
31 05-04-2024 I.A. no.5 of 2024, I.A. no.6 of 2024 and I.A. no.7 of 2024
Rule 3, 9 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for expunging the name of the sole appellant Jainath Singh on account of his death on 3.5.2021, condoning the delay in filing of the substitution petition, setting aside abatement and substituting his legal heirs, details of whom has been given in paragraph no.1 of I.A. no.5 of 2024.
Patna High Court SA No.17 of 1993(31) dt.05-04-2024 2/4
that the Corona period started from 2020 and continued till 2022 and for this reason there was complete lockdown all over the country. It was on the Second Appeal being listed on 19.12.2023 under the heading for hearing that the counsel appearing for the respondents informed this Court that the sole appellant had died long ago and substitution petition had not been filed. Accordingly this Court granted four weeks time to the counsel for the appellant to verify the matter and for filing of the substitution petition. It was thereafter that the counsel for the appellant informed his client and immediately thereafter the substitution petition was filed. It is submitted that legal heirs of the sole appellant were not aware that the substitution petition was to be filed within 90 days. For the ends of justice, the delay in filing of the substitution petition be condoned, the abatement be set aside and the substitution petition be allowed.
Patna High Court SA No.17 of 1993(31) dt.05-04-2024 3/4
21 days.
Patna High Court SA No.17 of 1993(31) dt.05-04-2024 4/4
be stated here that so far as paragraph no.5 is concerned, it only reproduces Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said case related to doctrine of merger and in the opinion of this Court, is of no assistance to the appellant of the instant case.
S.A. no.17 of 1993
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/- U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of over two years in filing the substitution petition after the sole appellant's death should be condoned and abatement set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Re.Relied on¶6
(2021) 5 SCC 452 · Who else cites this
Amba Bai vs. GopalDistinguished¶8
AIR 2001 SC 2003 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jainath Singh
Karpalo Devi
Others
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
