1982 INSC 0232
                                                        Bapurao

                                                           Vs

                                            Smt. Jamunabai and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 4093 of 1982

                                           (D. A. Desai. R. B. Misra JJ)

                                                      06.12.1982

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Respondent 7, Diwakar Gaikwad in Second Appeal No. 297 of 1973 on the file of the High
Court; of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur died. The appellant (herein) came to know about his death
when on the death of respondent I Prabhudayal Gulhard, he went in search; for ascertaining the;
names of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. An application under Order 22. Rule
9, (3) was filed for setting aside the abatement, if any, after condoning the delay and permitting
substitution. The High Court was n; not satisfied with the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the
application. While opposing the application for condoning the delay and bringing on record the
legal representatives the respondents contended that deceased respondent I was a prominent citizen
of Bilaspur and his death was reported in the newspapers and as the appellant was frequently
visiting Bilaspur and he has a large number of relatives he must be presumed to have come to know
about the death of respondent I and if this knowledge can be imputed, the appellant has failed to
show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from moving the application for substitution within
the prescribed period of limitation and Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot come to his rescue,
and consequently no case is made out; for condoning the delay. We are unable to appreciate that
litigants are presumed to read newspapers so as to be aware; of the death of prominent citizens from
the obituary columns of leading national newspapers. And this was the only ground for declining to
grant relief. It does not carry conviction. We are satisfied that the appellant had shown sufficient
cause which prevented him from moving the application for substitution in time in the High Court
and we accept the name as sufficient to condone delay. We accordingly condone the delay. We grant
5 substitution. Consequently, the abatement, if any, will have having abated cannot stand in the way
and must be quashed and set aside. We grant substitution after condoning the delay and remit the
appeal to the High Court for disposal according to laws on merits. However, d having regard to the
circumstances and facts; of the case, even though we allow the appeal we direct the appellant shall
pay as and by way of costs quantified at Rs. 1000. The amount must be paid before the High Court
proceeds to hear the appeal on merits.

</html