IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE,

MAYOHALL, AT BANGALORE
O.S NO. 26294/2008

BETWEEN
Sri Amar Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana
Plaintif

AND
Sri. Bharath S.J.B Rana and others
Defendants

WRITTEN ARGUMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.

The defendants submits as follows:1) It is submitted that upon the death of the plaintif during
the pendency of the suit, suit abated since the legal heirs
were not brought on record within a reasonable period. In
spite of filing application under Order 22 Rule 3 of Code of
Civil Procedure on 26/8/2009, the plaintif was not diligent
in pressing the application till 10-7-2010. Hence there is 5
years an inordinate delay in pressing application. on this
ground the present application is liable to be rejected.
2) It is further submitted that the application is not filed by
the legal heir or proper party to the suit, but filed under
Memorandum of Facts of the Advocate, which is not proper
and therefore the application is liable to be dismissed.
3) The application supported by the Memorandum of Facts is
not having sufficient reasons to restore the suit, but only
contains the subsequent events without giving valid
reasons.
4) It is further submitted that plaintifs has to prove that the
applicants are legal heir s of the deceased Plaintif.

The

averments in para 5 that the plaintif was concentration

only to issue notices to the defendants repeatedly is utterly

false as the suit against the defendant No. 1 to 6 and 8 to
13 was dismissed on 4-6-2010.
5) It submitted that there is an inordinate delay in pressing
the L.Rs application was filed on 19-9-2009 and after laps
of 5 years the plaintif pressing the LRs application through
filing a application supporting the Memorandum of Facts is
not maintainable.
6) It is further submitted that the delay in filing the LRs
application and after laps of 5 years the plaintif pressing
that LRs application is clearly shows that the plaintif do
not have any interest to prosecute the case.
WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that the application may
kindly be rejected as not maintainable in the interest of
justice and equity.

Bangalore
Date :
Defendants

Y.S. RAMESH , B,Com., LL.B.

ADVOCATE
NO. 669, KALASIPALYAAAM,

Advocate

for

DODDABALLAPUR, 561-203