Surendra Nath Roy v. Sailabala Roy

FA 41 of 2009 CAN 2 of 2009 (Old CAN 10232 of 2009) Item-40.

13-04-2023 CAN 3 of 2010 (old CAN 7191 of 2010) CAN 6 of 2014 (old CAN 8802 of 2014) sg Ct. 8 Surendranath Roy

Versus

Sailabala Roy, since deceased, represented by the legal heirs, Subhash Chandra Roy & Ors.

Mr. Suhrid Sur, Adv.

...for the appellant CAN 6 of 2014 (old CAN 8802 of 2014) is the application for setting aside of abatement.

We have read the application and also read the earlier orders. It seems that the appellant is not interested to have the matter heard. There is hardly any step taken by the appellant to file the application for substitution within the time. There is considerable delay in filing the application for substitution. The parties are siblings and we are unable to accept the explanation offered for not brining on record the legal heirs of the original respondent no.1 within the time of limitation. The only purpose is to delay the hearing of the appeal without any positive intention and inclination to have the appeal heard. The final decree proceeding has remained stayed for almost 13 years due to pendency of the appeal, although there was no formal order of stay.

Under such circumstances, we refuse to set aside the abatement.

The application for setting aside abatement is rejected. The appeal has already abated. The application for expeditious hearing of the appeal has now become infructuous.

The appeal and all the connected applications are, accordingly, dismissed.

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the final decree proceeding as expeditiously as possible.

The learned Registrar Administration (L&OM) is directed to communicate this order to the learned District Judge for information and doing the needful.

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)