Full Text
Translation output
S'-
A-70
% 15.07.2011
Present : Mr. Priya Ranjan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM (M) No.803/2011 & CM Nos.12703-705/2011
*
The present suit was a suit for declaration which has been filed by the plaintiff. The defendant in the course of the proceedings had expired; even as per the admitted case of the plaintiff, he came to know about the details of the legal representative of the deceased/defendant No. 2 on 22.12.2005; he had moved an application seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased only on 12.04.2006 for which no cogent reason had been given; the
Court while recording the order dated 09.12.2009 had also noted that no application for condonation of delay had also been filed. The application under order 22 Rules 4 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed on 09.12.2009. Thereafter an application seeking a review of the earlier order had been filed. That application was also filed belatedly which is not supported by any application for condonation of delay. The parameters for review which are contained and to be kept in mind by a court while deciding the application for review had been gone into the order dismissing review petition. This was on 17.08.2010. The present application has also been filed belatedly. Latches of the party on all stages of litigation remain unexplained.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 15, 2011 a
2011:DHC:18927
A-70
% 15.07.2011
Present : Mr. Priya Ranjan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM (M) No.803/2011 & CM Nos.12703-705/2011
*
The present suit was a suit for declaration which has been filed by the plaintiff. The defendant in the course of the proceedings had expired; even as per the admitted case of the plaintiff, he came to know about the details of the legal representative of the deceased/defendant No. 2 on 22.12.2005; he had moved an application seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased only on 12.04.2006 for which no cogent reason had been given; the
Court while recording the order dated 09.12.2009 had also noted that no application for condonation of delay had also been filed. The application under order 22 Rules 4 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed on 09.12.2009. Thereafter an application seeking a review of the earlier order had been filed. That application was also filed belatedly which is not supported by any application for condonation of delay. The parameters for review which are contained and to be kept in mind by a court while deciding the application for review had been gone into the order dismissing review petition. This was on 17.08.2010. The present application has also been filed belatedly. Latches of the party on all stages of litigation remain unexplained.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 15, 2011 a
2011:DHC:18927
JUDGMENT