The learned Judge had brought about a clear distinction between a case where the parties had been living in immediate vicinity or were related to the Court or had issued notice on him informing the death of the respondent and in other cases.
It is not in dispute that the appellants were neighbours. They were co-sharers. The respective dates of death of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, thus, were known to them. It is difficult to conceive that the petitioners were not in touch with their learned advocates from 1999 to December 2006. If not every week, they are expected to contact their lawyers once in a year. Ignorance of legal consequence without something more would, in our opinion, be not sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Appellants are literates. They have been fighting their cases for a long time. The High Court in its impugned judgment has categorically arrived at a finding that no sufficient cause has been shown for the purpose of condonation of delay in bringing on record the names of the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Reportable
Supreme Court of India
Katari Suryanarayana & Ors vs Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors on 8 April, 2009
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma
Citation:AIR 2009 SC 2907
