Poona Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Prem NaraIn Through Lrs. and ors.

Poona Devi (Smt.) and ors. vs Prem NaraIn Through Lrs. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Oct 31, 2006

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/769166

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/769166
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
Decided On: Oct 31, 2006
Subject: Limitation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- EDUCATION -- Admission to M.B.B.S., Course: [R.M. Lodha, Shiv Kumar Sharma & Ashok Parihar, JJ] Candidate belonging to reserved category got selected competing with open category candidates on the basis of merit Held, Where a candidate belonging to reserved category gets selected competing with open category cand...

Key legal issue: Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Poona Devi (Smt.) and ors.

Respondent

Prem NaraIn Through Lrs. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: RLW2007(2)Raj982

Excerpt

- education -- admission to m.b.b.s., course: [r.m. lodha, shiv kumar sharma & ashok parihar, jj] candidate belonging to reserved category got selected competing with open category candidates on the basis of merit held, where a candidate belonging to reserved category gets selected competing with open category candidates on the basis of merit, the selection of such candidate needs to be considered in the general and cannot be counted against the reserved category since such selection is purely based on merit. however, the constitutional right of such candidate belonging to reserved category is not taken away and such selection of a reserved category candidate on merit in open competition does not put him or her in disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates who are selected against the quota reserved for that category, be it a preference of subject or institution or place or to such other right to which he/she may be entitled as if he/she were selected in the reserved category - as well as application under section 5 of the limitation act were on the record when the order dated 13.12.1989 was passed by this court and legal representatives of deceased-respondent prem narain were taken on the record......j.1. heard learned counsel for the both the parties.2. this order will dispose of three applications-first, under section 151 of the - c.p.c. filed by the first, under section 151 of the c.p.c. tiled by the respondents on 24.7.2006, second, under order 22 rule 4 read with order 22 rule 9(2) and section 151 of the c.p.c. filed by the appellants on 4.8.2006, and third, under order 22 rule 9(2) of the cpc read with section 5 of the indian limitation act, 1887, filed by the appellants on 4.8.2006.3. the learned counsel for the respondents, dr. prakash chandra jain, in his application dated 24.7.2006, has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as having been abated on the ground that the application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased-respondent no. 1 prem narain on the record, was accepted subject to objections, which may be raised by the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent. the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondent no. 1 prem narain expired on 22.5.1989 and application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed on 11.9.1989 which was barred by limitation but the same was allowed on 13.12.1989 subject to objections. his contention is that period of limitation for filing the application under order 22 rule 4 c.p.c. was 90 days, but application was not filed within a period of limitation, therefore, appeal had abated on expiry of 90 days period of limitation. thereafter, the application under order 22 rule 9 c.p.c. could have been filed within 60 days from the date of abatement of the appeal, but the same was also not filed within a period of limitation.4. learned counsel for the appellants has filed application under order 22 rule 9(2) of the cpc read with section 5 of the indian limitation act, on 4.8.2006, wherein he has contended that the respondent no. 1 prem narain expired on 22.5.1989 and this fact came to the knowledge of the appellants when the entry of death of prem narain was.....

Full Judgment

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the both the parties.

2. This order will dispose of three applications-first, under Section 151 of the - C.P.C. Filed by the first, under Section 151 of the C.P.C. Tiled by the respondents on 24.7.2006, second, under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Order 22 Rule 9(2) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the appellants on 4.8.2006, and third, under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1887, filed by the appellants on 4.8.2006.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents, Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain, in his application dated 24.7.2006, has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as having been abated on the ground that the application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased-respondent No. 1 Prem Narain on the record, was accepted subject to objections, which may be raised by the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the respondent No. 1 Prem Narain expired on 22.5.1989 and application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed on 11.9.1989 which was barred by limitation but the same was allowed on 13.12.1989 subject to objections. His contention is that period of limitation for filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was 90 days, but application was not filed within a period of limitation, therefore, appeal had abated on expiry of 90 days period of limitation. Thereafter, the application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. could have been filed within 60 days from the date of abatement of the appeal, but the same was also not filed within a period of limitation.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has filed application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, on 4.8.2006, wherein he has contended that the respondent No. 1 Prem Narain expired on 22.5.1989 and this fact came to the knowledge of the appellants when the entry of death of Prem Narain was made in the register of the Registrar Officer, from where they immediately obtained the copy of the entry and filed the application before this Court way-back on 11.9.1989 for taking his legal representatives on the record.

5. It appears from the record and the facts mentioned in the applications that the plaintiff-respondent Prem Narain expired on 22.5.1989 and an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of death of respondent, but the same was filed after some delay i.e. on 11.9.1989. Subsequently, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the appellants to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. way -back on 15.11.1989. The application for substitution was listed before this Court for orders on 13.12.1989 and it was allowed subject to objections. Under the aforesaid liberty, which was granted by this Court on 13.12.1989, the respondents raised the above objection that the appeal had abated automatically when application for setting aside the abatement was not filed within 60 days from the date of abatement of the appeal.

6. 1 have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties.

7. There is no dispute in between both the parties that the plaintiff-respondent Prem Narain died on 22.5.1989 and an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. for substitution of his legal representatives on the record was filed on 11.9.1989. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. was also filed by the appellants before this Court on 15.11.1989. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC was allowed by this Court on 13.12.1989 subject to the objections. The period of limitation for filing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 or 4 of the C.P.C. is 90 days from the date of death of person concerned and in case the same is not filed then the appeal abates automatically on the day the period of 90 days expires, and remedy for setting aside the abatement of appeal is available under Order 22 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. If the application has not been filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. within time i.e. 60 days from the date of abatement of the appeal then an application can be filed under the provisions of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay.

8. In the present case the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were on the record when the order dated 13.12.1989 was passed by this Court and legal representatives of deceased-respondent Prem Narain were taken on the record. The court did not pass any order on 13.12.1989 regarding abatement of the appeal in spite of the fact that there was no application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement. It appears that this Court impliedly condoned the delay on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and allowed the application dated 10th/11th September, 1989 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent Prem Narain on the record. The matter remained pending for about 16 years. The application was filed way back on 11.9.1989 with delay of 22 days in filing the application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also on the record when the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was allowed on 13.12.1989. In these circumstances I am of the view that the appeal did not abate against the deceased-respondent Prem Narain and his legal representatives were rightly taken on the record. The application dated 24.7.2006 filed by the respondent is, therefore, rejected.

9. In view of above discussion and view of this Court the appeal had not been abated, therefore, it is not necessary to pass any order on the application dated 4.8.2006 filed by the appellants under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting-aside abatement of the appeal and the said application dated 4.8.2O06 is also disposed of.

10. The third application dated 4.8.2006 filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 9(2) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. for deleting the names of respondent No. 1/1 Smt. Gulab Devi Widow of late Shri Prem Narain, and the respondent No. 3 Hari Ram is concerned, it is contended in the application that the legal representatives of deceased-respondent No. 1/1 Smt. Gulab Devi are already on the record and so far as the respondent No. 3 is concerned he has already sold his share in the disputed property, therefore, the names of both the respondents be deleted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I allow the application dated 4.8.2006 filed by the appellant and order to delete the names of respondents No. 1/1 Smt. Gulab Devi W/o late Prem Narain, and the respondent No. 3 Hari Ram, from the array of the respondents at the risk of the appellants.

11. The amended cause title has already been filed by the appellants, which may be taken on the record and be placed at proper place of the file.

12. Put up tomorrow for hearing.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2006 Same Parties Poona Devi (Smt.) and ors. vs Prem NaraIn Through Lrs. and ors. Same Subject Limitation Same Judge Narendra Kumar Jain, J.

Limitation