He served numberice on the Trust also for admitting his claim and to hand over his possession of the allotted plot to him, but to numberavail.
Further case of the appellant is that the respondent Trust ultimately allotted the disputed plot in a scheme known as 55 acres development scheme to him.
On appeal preferred by the respondent Trust, the First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 18th May, 1995 reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for companydonation of delay in filing the restoration application and delay in bringing on record the LRs.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusing the record, we find that it was number a fit case to companydone delay, bring the LRs on record and to set aside the order of abatement, High Court rightly rejected all the applications.
During the pendency of the said appeal, Ramesh Chander died on 14th December, 2003 leaving behind his widow applicant herein along with two sons and three daughters.
iv Smt.
Her plea that she was told by her husband that companynsel would inform about the hearing of the application, cannot be a ground to entertain the application for companydonation of delay of more than seven years for preferring the petition for substitution.
Ramesh Chander.
However, numberpetition for substitution was filed for years.
After six and half years of the death of the original plaintiff Ramesh Chander, CM No.4841 C of 2010 was filed in the second appeal on 22nd April, 2010 on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the High Court for bringing on record the following legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh Chander Smt.
The second appeal was admitted on 21st August, 1995 and operation of the judgment dated 18th May, 1995 was stayed.
iii Raman Kumar son of Sh.
ii Harish Chander son of Sh.
Ramesh Chander, therefore, filed Civil Suit No.123/1988 on 2nd March, 1988 for declaration that he was entitled to deposit Rs.10,000/ towards first instalment of plot No.456 and balance price thereof, allotted to him in 55 acres development scheme and to its vacant possession and for mandatory injunction, directing respondent No.1 Trust to receive the earnest money from him and to deliver its possession.
She was number aware that the LRs were required to be brought on record after the death of her husband.
of deceased appellant on record.
Plaintiff has numberdoubt claimed possession of the plot in the suit but it has companye in the evidence of Prem Pal PW 1 that possession is with him plaintiff of the allotted plot and his this part of statement has number been companytroverted by Om Parkash DW 1 official of the Trust.
Rajesh Kumar, resident of 182 F, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
The suit was decreed by Sub Judge by judgment and decree on 10th June, 1988.
Rajinder Kumar, resident of H.No.702, Phase VII, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, District Mohali.
A petition for substitution was filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Second Appellate Court.Thereafter, Ramesh Chander requested the respondent Trust to accept instalment of Rs.
The delay was calculated taking the date of knowledge from 1st April, 2010 on the basis of advice of Shri Vijay Rana, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The defendant respondent No.1 appeared and filed a written statement.
Nos.11669 C to 11672 C of 2010 in R.S.A. No.1908 of 1995.
However, the High Court allowed the other applications under Sections 151 C.P.C to place on record the companyies of judgment and decree dated 20th January, 2004 passed in RSA No.1822 of 2003 Ajinder Kaur vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and judgment dated 15th March, 2000 in RSA No.3673/2000 Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. Harbhajan Kaur and others.
The second appeal remained pending.
of Nasib Chand including respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this appeal and other legal heirs of Ramesh Chander.
Ramesh Chander all residents of Buta Mandi, Jalandhar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
In the said petition following order was passed on 14th May, 2010 This is an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal heirs of the appellant, who is stated to have died on 14.12.2003.
Since the legal representatives of the original plaintiff appellant in S.A.No.1908 of 1995 had chosen number to companye forward to pursue the appeal, the second appeal was dismissed for number prosecution.
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act for companydonation of delay in bringing LRs on record and for setting aside order dismissing appeal in default and Civil Misc.
Ramesh Chander w o Sh.
The case of the applicant, wife of original plaintiff Ramesh Chander is that one Nasib Chand father of Ramesh Chander and respondent Nos.3 to 5 and husband of respondent No.2 was the owner of land measuring 28 Kanals 5 marlas situated at Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar, which was acquired by the respondent Jalandhar Improvement Trust hereinafter referred to as the Trust for development of scheme known as 13.37 acres scheme.
The appellant has also taken plea that she is an illiterate lady and was informed by her husband that his appeal was number likely to be taken up for the next 20 years and their companynsel would intimate the date whenever it is listed.
The application for bringing on record the LRs of the original plaintiff appellant before the Second Appellate Court at the behest of respondent Nos.2 and 3, having withdrawn was dismissed as withdrawn.
The aforesaid applications were rejected by the impugned companymon order dated 8th July, 2011 passed by the High Court.
Sita Devi d o Sh.
The aforesaid application was supported by an affidavit of Jagdish Chander, son of Nasib Chand i.e. respondent No.3 in the appeal.
This application has been moved by respondents No.1 and No.3 who are proforma respondents in this appeal and numberrelief has been claimed against them whereas the LRs of Ramesh Chander apepllant have number chosen to companye forward to pursue this appeal.
Learned companynsel for the appellant took a similar plea as was taken before the High Court that the appellant had numberidea about dismissal of the appeal for number prosecution.
Faced with this situation, learned companynsel for the applicant i.e. Respondents No.2 and 3 prays for withdrawal of the aforesaid application.
Ramesh Chander w o Sh.
vi Smt.
Original plaintiff Ramesh Chander then filed second appeal R.S.A. No.1908 of 1995 against the judgment and decree dated 18th May, 1995 passed by the First Appellate Court.
Admittedly, Ramesh Chander the original plaintiff, appellant before the Second Appellate Court, died on 14th December, 2003 the appellant is the widow of Ramesh Chander and she had knowledge of the pendency of the second appeal.
Being aggrieved, the defendant respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court.
Surinder Pal, resident of H.No.588, New Arya Nagar, Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the following Petitions Civil Misc.
After the dismissal of the petition for substitution CM No.4841 C/2010 due to withdrawal of such application by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the applicant Karam Kaur filed Civil Misc.
Nirmla Devi D o Sh.
After remand, a fresh written statement was filed by the Trust, in which the Trust did number deny the factum that the plaintiff was a Local Displaced Person but disputed legality of allotment regarding Plot No.456 in 55 acre scheme on the ground that the Chairman had numberright to allot any plot, and Plot No.456 was wrongly allotted.
Karam Kaur widow of Sh.
Ramesh Chander, wife of Sh.
Rita Kumari, D o Sh.
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted.
No.11669 C/2010 for setting aside the order dated 14th May, 2010 dismissing the appeal for number prosecution claiming herself to be the sole legal heir in whom the right to sue survived on the basis of a Deed of Family Settlement dated 21st January, 2010 executed between the LRs.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 8th July, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Misc.
Application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for bringing LRs.
Application under Section 151 C.P.C. for setting aside order dated 14th May, 2010 dismissing the appeal for number prosecution Civil Misc.
Ramesh Chander.
The original plaintiff Ramesh Chander made many requests to the respondent Trust for allotting him a plot in lieu of the acquired land.
The applicant also filed an application, CM No.13869 C of 2010 on Ist December, 2010 for companydoning the delay in bringing on record the LRs of the Ramesh Chander and for setting aside the order dismissing the appeal in default.
Nasib Chand died on 8th May, 1987 leaving behind Ramesh Chander original plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 as his heirs.
The aforesaid Deed of Family Settlement dated 21st January, 2010 was also placed on record in CM No.11670 C of 2010 for bringing her on record LRs of Ramesh Chander.
10,000/ and deliver vacant possession of the plot but to numbereffect.
