(Order XXII Rule 3 CPC) Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court

(Order XXII Rule 3 CPC) Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court

Case: Dlf Homes Rajapura Pvt. Ltd V. Late O.P. Mehta & Anr.

Coram: Justice C. Hari Shankar

Case No.: CM(M) 574/2022

Court Observation: “In the case of the NCDRC, therefore, a complaint, in representative capacity, may be filed with the NCDRC, only with the permission of the NCDRC. Till such time as permission is granted, therefore, the complaint cannot be treated as having been filed, even if it has, technically speaking, been tendered in the Registry. Undisputedly, on the date when the impugned order came to have been passed by the learned NCDRC, no permission had been granted by it, under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, for filing a complaint in a representative capacity…On the date when the impugned order came to be passed, it could not be said that the consumer complaint of the respondents had been brought in a representative capacity so as to exclude the application of Rules 3 and 4 of Order XXII. I, therefore, am of the opinion that the contention that Rules 3 and 4 of Order XXII of the CPC did not apply in the present case, which was governed exclusively by Order XXII Rule 10, is bereft of substance. It is accordingly rejected.”

“A simple prayer for bringing legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement…so also a prayer for setting aside abatement as regards one of the plaintiffs can be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety.”

“In dealing with applications under Order XXII Rule 3 for substitution of legal heirs, or under Order XXII Rule 9 for setting aside abatement of proceedings, the Court has to strike a balance. The delay, any which way, has to be satisfactory explained. In assessing the sufficiency of the explanation as cause for the delay, however, the Court has to be liberal and expansive in its approach, and to proceed ex debito justitiae. The fact that, by abatement of the proceedings, a legal right has ensured in favour of the opposite party, can be a delimiting factor only to a restricted extent, and no more. It cannot be said that the averments contained in IA 19644/2019 sufficiently explained the delay of 607 days in preferring the application. They do not even meet the threshold requirement which the application seeking condonation of delay was required to meet. Howsoever expansive a view the Court may adopt, and with greatest respect to the learned NCDRC which has held otherwise, I am unable to convince myself that, even applying the most liberal of standards, the assertions in the IA can be said to have sufficiently explained the delay of 607 days.”

Previous Posts

Copyright Owners Have Right To Dub Cinema: Delhi High Court Vacates Stay On Hindi Dub Of Telugu Movie Bheemla Nayak

Person Driving Without License Has Knowledge That Act Likely To Cause Death: Kerala HC Refuses To Modify Conviction From S.304 To 304A IPC

Central Govt Has Taken Steps To Bring De-Notified Nomadic Tribes Into Mainstream Of The Country: Delhi High Court

Disparity In Pay Scale Classification Based On Mode Of Recruitment, Qualification & Merit Not Unreasonable: Delhi High Court

Courts Can’t Expand Scope Of Qualification Prescribed By Employer By Reading Into It A Higher Qualification: J&K&L High Court

Decision Of Adjudicating Authority Can’t Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Govt Limb, Reliable Evidence Indicating Bias Is Must: Karnataka High Court

State Not Obliged To Pay Salary To Teachers Whose Appointments Are Void Ab Initio: Kerala High Court

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC Recall Applications Can’t Be Allowed Merely For Filling Lacuna In Cross-Examination: Delhi High Court

Start-Ups Can’t Seek Relaxation Of Tender Conditions As A Matter Of Right, Especially In Field Of Healthcare: Delhi High Court

Dysfunctional Limbs Render 100% Functional Disability: Karnataka High Court Orders ₹21.86 Lakh Compensation For Minor Victim In Motor Accident

Detention Beyond Release Date Violates Article 21: Supreme Court Grants Rs 7.5 Lakh Compensation To Convict Kept In Prison In Excess Of Sentence Period

High Court Under Article 226 And 227 Should Be Extremely Circumspect In Interfering With Orders Passed Under Arbitration Act Download Judgement

Keywords

Delay In Filing Application, Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs