Back
K.RAMASWAMY, K.T.THOMAS
Puthiya Purayil Kannan S Widow Kozipurath Chemmarathi By L. R. Kozhipurathu Kanaran – Appellant
Versus
Patinhare Koyyattan Balan – Respondent
ORDER
This Court by order dated November 16, 1995 dismissed the special leave petition on the ground that the original petitioner had died on September 1, 1993 and the application to bring the legal representatives on record was filed on January 27, 1994 and, therefore, the application stood abated. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner died on September 1, 1993. By operation of Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant, should be filed within 90 days from the date of the death of the plaintiff/defendant. If the application is not filed within the date, the abatement taken place. As contemplated in Article 121 of the Schedule which envisages that for seeking an order to set aside the abatement, the application need to be filed within 60 days from the date of the abatement. In this case, since the original petitioner died on September 1, 1993, the application was required to be filed within 90 days from that date which, no doubt, was not filed. So, abatement took place. Thereafter, the application to set aside the abatement was filed on January 27, 1994 which
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided excerpt mentions a case (Puthiya Purayil Kannan’s Widow Kozipurath Chemmarathi) and references a Supreme Court decision (AIR 1997 SC 2440), but there is no indication in the text that this case has been overruled or discredited. Without explicit language suggesting negative treatment, I cannot categorize any case as bad law based solely on the provided information.
Followed / Affirmed:
The mention of the Supreme Court decision in Puthiya Purayil Kannan’s Widow Kozipurath Chemmarathi suggests it may have been followed or relied upon in subsequent rulings, but there is no explicit statement confirming this. The phrase "This is what has been found to be the legal consequence by Apex Court" implies its authoritative status, possibly indicating it is still good law.
Distinguished / Cited:
The phrase "the Court has given a bit new dimension" in relation to Patinhare Koyyattan Balan and others, AIR 1997 SC 2440, suggests that this case may have been distinguished or that it introduced a new perspective. However, the context does not specify whether this was in a positive or negative sense, merely that it provided a new dimension.
Unclear / Ambiguous:
The overall treatment of these cases is not explicitly detailed in the excerpt. There is no mention of these cases being criticized, questioned, overruled, or reversed. The language indicates their importance or influence but does not clarify whether they are still considered good law or have been challenged.
Because the treatment pattern is not explicitly stated (e.g., no clear indication of overruling, reversal, or negative treatment), the status of these cases remains uncertain. The references seem to highlight their significance but do not confirm their current legal standing.
**Source :** KANWAL SARUP KHURANA VS KUNWAR HARENDRA PRATAP SAHI - Allahabad
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
