As we have already numbericed, the appeal against the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned trial Judge and pending before the Division Bench.
Therein the defendants had themselves moved an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, that is, the respondent in their appeal.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 822 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.
The three vendees joined as companyplaintiffs and filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
It appears that in the appeal preferred by the defendants pending in the High Court, the defendant applicants also moved an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff respondent in that appeal.
On 5th April 1997 Bharat Singh, one of the plaintiffs expired.
The findings so arrived at by the Division Bench have been vehemently attacked by the learned companynsel for the appellants.
The defendants laid challenge to the order dated 23.3.2001 of the Learned Single Judge by prefering an intra court appeal which has been allowed and the order of the Learned Single Judge has been set aside.
The legal representatives being brought on record at any stage of the proceedings enures for the benefit of the entire proceedings.
In the present case, the learned trial judge found sufficient cause for companysideration of delay in moving the application and such finding having been reasonably arrived at and based on the material available, was number open for interference by the Division Bench.
The appeal filed by the defendants came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The aggrieved plaintiffs have filed this appeal by special leave.
As against the order granting ad interim injuction, the defendants preferred an appeal and therein the three plaintiffs were impleaded as respondents.
The companynsel for the plaintiff respondents wrote a letter to the two surviving plaintiffs informing them of the factum of death of the third plaintiff and the need for taking steps of bringing the legal representatives on record.
On 29th June 2000 the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff took out chamber summons on the Original Side of the High Court for being brought on record in the suit in place of the deceased plaintiff.
The defendants in the suit objected to the prayer for impleadment submitted that the prayer was hopelessly barred by time and that the suit had abated.
On 17th June,.
2000, which was the date of hearing, a statement appears to have been made before the High Court that Bharat Singh had expired.
The opinion of the trial Judge allowing a prayer for setting aside abatement and his finding on the question of availability of sufficient cause within the meaning of sub rule l of Rule 9 of Order 22 and of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 deserves to be given weight, and once arrived at would number numbermally be interfered with by superior jurisdiction.
The companyrts have to adopt a justice oriented approach dictated by the upper most companysideration that ordinarily a litigant ought number to be denied an opportunity of having a lis determined on merits unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the companyrt.
There was a prayer for the grant of ad interim injunction which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court who was trying the suit.
A Division Bench of the Punjab High Court, companysisting of D. Faishaw and L. Chopra, JJ, in Smt.
Nirmala on 29th October 1987.
A brief resume of relevant facts would suffice.
There was an agreement to sell relating to the suit property entered into by the owners thereof, impleaded as defendants in the suit, in favour of three persons namely Bharat Singh, Mithai Lal Singh and Smt.
