1) if your grand father died in 1993 were the legal heirs brought on record ?

2) in other words your father , your grand mother etc continued the case?

3) how could judgement be passed in grand father favour in 1997 ie 4 years after his death unless legal heirs were brought on record ?

4) if judgement was passed in 1997 by HC how is it that you were not aware of case proceedings ?

5) in any case now you have to take the plea that you were not aware of pending case and orders passed in it . it only came to your knowledge in 2009 through third party

6) affidavit has to be filed explaining period of delay for taking out execution proceedings

1)  Supreme Court in the case of  G. Ramegowda,

Major   etc.   vs.   The   Special   Land   Acquisition

Officer, Bangalore, reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 897

and   submitted   that,   the   expression   ‘sufficient

cause’   in   Section   5   of   the   Limitation   Act   must

receive   a   liberal   construction   so   as   to   advance

substantial   justice   and   generally   delays   in

preferring appeals are required to be condoned in

the interest of justice where no gross negligence

or   deliberate   inaction   or   lack   of   bonafides     is

imputable   to   the   party   seeking   condonation   of

delay.

2)  Supreme Court in the case

of State (NCT  of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, reported

in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 695  and submitted that, the

expression   ‘sufficient   cause’   should   received   a

liberal   construction.     He   further   invited   my

attention   to   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the

case   of  Ghyanchand   s/o   Lalchand   vs.   Municipal

Corporation,   Dhule,   reported   in  2009   (3)   Mh.L.J.

317, and submitted that, the discretion exercised

by   the   Court   in   condoning   the   delay   would   not

ordinarily be disturbed by the Superior Court much

less   in   revisional   jurisdiction   unless   the

exercise   of   discretion   was   wholly   on   untenable

grounds or arbitrary or perverse.

The   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of

Balwant   Singh   (dead)   vs.   Jagdish   Singh   &   others

(supra) in para­13 held thus:  

"The purpose of introducing liberal

construction   normally   is   to   introduce

the concept of 'reasonableness' as it it

understood   in   its   general   connotation.

The   law   of   limitation   is   a   substantive

law and has definite consequences on the

right   and   obligation   of   a   party   to

arise.     These   principles   should   be

adhered   to   and   applied   appropriately

depending on the facts and circumstances

of a given case.  Once a valuable right,

as accrued  in favour of one party  as a

result of the failure of the other party

to   explain   the   delay   by   showing

sufficient  cause  and its own conduct,it

will   be   unreasonable   to   take   away   that

right   on   the   mere   asking   of   the

applicant,   particularly   when   the   delay

is   directly   a   result   of   negligence,

default   or   inaction   of   that   party.

Justice   must   be   done   to   both   parties

equally.  Then alone the ends of justice

can   be   achieved.     If   a   party   has   been

thoroughly negligent in implementing its

rights and remedies, it will be equally

unfair   to   deprive   the   other   party   of   a

valuable right that has accrued to it in

law   as   a   result   of   his   acting

vigilantly.     The   application   filed   by

the   applicants   lack   in   details.     Even

the   averments   made   are   not   correct   and

ex­facie   lack   bona   fide.     The

explanation   has   to   be   reasonable   or

plausible,   so   as   to   persuade   the   Court

to believe that the explanation rendered

is   not   only   true,   but   is   worthy   of

35 CRA97.05

exercising judicial discretion in favour

of   the   applicant.     If   it   does   not

specify   any   of   the   enunciated

ingredients   of   judicial   pronouncements,

then   the   application   should   be

dismissed.     On   the   other   hand,   if   the

application is bona fide and based upon

true and plausible explanations, as well

as   reflect   normal   behavior   of   a   common

prudent   person   on   the   part   of   the

applicant, the Court would normally tilt

the   judicial   discretion   in   favour   of

such an applicant.  Liberal construction

cannot   be   equated   with   doing   injustice

to the other party.  2004(5) ALL MR (SC)

­ Held per incurium".

.

1. The High Court has after the demise of your grand father ruled in his favour. So all his legal heirs benefit from the judgment. No appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court against the HC order.

2. What is the nature of the case filed by his son in the lower court? The judgment cannot be valid for only 6 months.

3. The rights of your grand father vest in his legal heirs after his demise.

1. What do you mean by ''rit''? It is unheard of in legal parlance.

2. What was the nature of the case filed by your grand father and ruled in his favour by the HC? Did the case pertain to a proprietary right of your grand father which had been denied to him?

3. Even if the legal heirs were not on record the rights which accrued to them after the judgment do not diminish. You need no judgments in this regard as after the judgment of the High Court the rights could have been enforced at any time.

1) once your grand father dies suit abates unless legal heirs are brought on record

2) you r advocate had informed your uncle of the case in 1997 yet your uncle slept over the case papers

3) so you cant blame the advocate that he had not informed your family of pending case .

4) in your case your uncle has been grossly negligent in taking out execution proceedings for 12 years .

5) delay wont be condoned

6) i have already furnished some SC judgement on delay condonation . sufficient cause has to be made out for condoning delay

You have filed an execution petition in the lower court for execution of the decree passed in favour of your grand father. Limitation for execution of decree is 12 years and it can not be extended beyond that period. Your case ( execution petition ) is therefore not maintainable and therefore Ld. Judge is asking for case laws whether this delayed period can be condoned. As per Law, the delay can not be condoned. Now it is to be seen from the decree whether there was any observations in the decree which disabled its immediate execution: eg whether the judgment debtor was to perform specific act before decree could be executed?.

Hi, Judgement passed against dead person is not valid you have to file an application to bring the LR'S on record fortunately you have not done.

2. Delay may be condone but it is purely discretion of the court but you have to give valid reason for delay but as per law each day of delay has to be explained.

1. The judgement was passed in favour of the deceased appellant which were not known to his legal heirs,

2. The legal heirs came to know about the said judgement only recently through a third party after which they have filed the execution petition,

3. File a petition explaining the delay,

4. Engage a local lawyer having expertise in this field.

1. This is a fit case to win,

2. You have valid ground for the delay,

3. The Judge can not outsource his judgement bthrough you since it is an uniqe case,

4. Even if he refuses to give you relief, you will get relief from High Court.