Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the abatement of the appeal should be set aside and delay condoned on the ground of sufficient cause.
Analysis: The relevant limitation periods for substitution and for setting aside abatement run from the death of the respondent and the date of abatement. Relief under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 depends on proof of sufficient cause, and mere absence of knowledge of death is not by itself enough. The explanation must show that the applicant was not guilty of culpable negligence or mala fides and that the circumstances reasonably prevented timely action. On the facts, the petitioner established that it learnt of the death only shortly before moving the application, acted promptly on receiving that information, and there was no material showing negligence or bad faith attributable to it.
Conclusion: Sufficient cause was made out, and the abatement was properly set aside with condonation of delay in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: An application to set aside abatement may be allowed where the applicant proves sufficient cause for the delay and the record does not disclose culpable negligence or mala fides; mere late knowledge of the opposite party's death is not conclusive, but may suffice when supported by a credible explanation and prompt action.