* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.208/2004 Sh. Moti Lal Gupta …..Appellant Through: Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate Versus M/s N.P. Jain & Co. …Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT % 13.05.2008 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the records including the order of the learned Single Judge. 2. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has permitted the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the plaintiff. 3. The suit is a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for recovery of Rs.58 lacs. Prabhu Dayal Jain, the sole proprietor of the plaintiff, died on 19th May, 2004. The application for bringing legal heirs on record was filed on 9th December, 2004. There was a delay of around 3½ months in filing the application. The reasons for delay have been explained that the applicant was under the bona fide belief that the FAO(OS) 208/2004 Page 1 of 3 present suit had been filed by a company i.e. M/s N.P. Jain & Co. and, therefore, there was no necessity at all for bringing the legal heirs on record. Since the applicant was under this belief, he neither informed his advocate nor took any steps for filing the present application. It is only when the defendant approached this Court praying for staying the order dated 13th August, 2004 that the applicant contacted his lawyer and was advised to file the present application. 4. The learned single Judge after referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and anr. v. Ms. Katiji and ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353; Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & ors. V. Gobardhan Sao and ors. 2002 (3) SCC 195 and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta 2003 (3) SCC 272 has observed as under: “7. In the facts of the present case their seems to be no reason why the legal heirs of the plaintiff would not like to pursue the matter. There would also be no reason for the plaintiff to file the application after delay more so as the present suit is for the recovery of more than 59,00,000/- and no advantage would be offered to the legal heirs for not filing the present application. 8. For the reasons stated in the application and based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (Supra), Ram Nath Sao (Supra) and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Supra), this Court must adopt liberal approach while dealing with FAO(OS) 208/2004 Page 2 of 3 this application as a substantive right has accrued in favour of the legal heirs of the plaintiff and the same cannot be taken away for any technical reasons. The applications are allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.” 5. It is well settled that a justice oriented approach has to be adopted while dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It would not be proper to deny / foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of the parties and technical objections, which tend to be stumbling blocks in the way of substantial and effective justice, should be strictly discouraged, except where the mandate of law inevitably necessitates it. 6. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR, J May 13, 2008 “nm” FAO(OS) 208/2004 Page 3 of 3