Union Of India vs Ram Charan - 1963 Supreme(SC) 150

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1963 Supreme(SC) 150

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Ram Charan (deceased) through his Legal Representatives, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1962.
30th April, 1963
Advocates Appeared
Mr. D. R. Prem, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate, with him), for Applellant; Mr. Veda Vyasa, Sr. Advocate (Mr. K. K. Jain, Advocate for Mr. P. C. Khanna, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
D.R.Prem, K.K.JAIN, P.C.Khanna, P.D.MENON, Veda Vyasa

Headnote:IMPLEADING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES UNDER INHERENT POWER - ABATEMENT - GENEROUS CONSTRUCTION TO BE PUT ON THE ENACTMENT - “SUFFICIENT CAUSE” AND “GOOD CAUSE”—DISTINCTION - APPLICATION FOR ADDING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IS NECESSARY —COURT CANNOT ACT UNDER THIS RULE SUO MOTU - LIMITATION - DELAY IN SUBSTITUTION ON GROUND OF IGNORANCE OF DEATH - “SUFFICIENT CAUSE” - ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION - REASONS PREVENTING PLAINTIFF FROM KNOWING About the DEATH WITHIN REASONABLE TIME - PRAYER OF SETTING ASIDE ABATEMENT IS IMPLICIT IN PRAYER FOR SUBSTITUTION - LIMITATION RUNS FROM DATE OF DEATH AND NOT FROM DATE OF KNOWLEDGE
       -where the suit has abated on account of the appellants failure to take steps for impleading the legal representatives of the respondents the Court cannot implead the legal representatives under inherent powers under this Section
       -there is no difference between the two expressions, as held in Union of India v. Ram Charan, AIR 1964 SC 215. If the cause is good then it would be sufficient.
       -see the decision in Union of India v. Ram Charan, AIR 1964 SC 215. Ordinarily it would be the plaintiff who is to file an application under this Rule, as by the abatement of the suit the defendant stands to gain, although the Rule does not say as to who is to file the application.
       -starts from the death of the party and not from the date of knowledge of the applicant
       -the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally -
       -the court should not accept the bare allegation made in the application, but must examine the evidence adduced in support of each of the allegations -

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

The suit had abated due to the failure of the appellant to take timely steps for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that there is no distinction between the expressions "sufficient cause" and "good cause," and that a cause deemed good would generally be sufficient for the court's consideration (!) .
An application for adding legal representatives is necessary; the court cannot act suo motu under this rule (!) .
Limitation for filing such applications runs from the date of death, not from the date of the applicant’s knowledge of the death (!) .
The expression "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally, but the court must scrutinize the evidence supporting the allegations rather than accepting bare assertions (!) .
Delay in substitution based on ignorance of death can be justified if the applicant demonstrates reasons that prevented knowledge within a reasonable time, and these reasons are supported by allegations in the application (!) .
The prayer for setting aside abatement is implicit in the prayer for substitution, and the limitation period is three months, starting from the date of death (!) .
The burden is on the applicant to prove that they were prevented by sufficient cause from acting within the prescribed period; mere ignorance of death is not automatically sufficient (!) .
The applicant must provide reasons explaining why they did not know of the death earlier; the court will evaluate whether these reasons are satisfactory (!) .
The court should not accept default allegations without proper support and must examine the evidence to determine if the cause for delay is sufficient (!) .
The procedural rules require an application to be made for bringing legal representatives on record; failure to do so within the prescribed time results in abatement (!) (!) .
The suit's abatement prevents the institution of a new suit based on the same cause of action, unless the abatement is set aside (!) .
The court's inherent power cannot be invoked suo motu to implead legal representatives if the suit has abated due to neglect or default (!) .
The court's role is to ensure justice by considering whether the applicant's reasons for delay are justified, rather than strictly adhering to procedural technicalities (!) .

Please let me know if you need further assistance or a more detailed analysis.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. The facts leading to this appeal, by special leave, against the orders of the High Court of Punjab are these : Ram Charan obtained a decree for money against the Union of India on January 6,1955. The Union of India presented an appeal on April 6, 1955, in the High Court. Ram Charan, the sole respondent, filed a cross-objection on July 31, 1955. On February 6, 1956 the High Court passed an order in connection with the surety bond. Ram Charan was represented at the proceedings. Ram Charan died on July 21, 1957.

2. On March 18, 1958 an application was presented to the High Court on behalf of the appellant under O. XXII R. 4, read with S. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, starting that Ram Charan died on July 21, 1957 that the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ambala Cantonment, learnt of his death on February 3, 1958, and that the deceased had left as his legal representatives, an adopted son and a widow. It was prayed that these legal representatives be brought on record in the place of the deceased respondent. The affidavit field in support of this application did not convey any further information and it was solemnly affirmed by the deponent that the averments in the affidavit were true to his belief. The deponent was no other than the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ambala, Cantonment.

3. On May 13, 1958, the widow of Ram Charan applied that she alone was the legal representative of Ram Charan under a will and that the alleged adopted son was not the legal representative. The appellant s application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Charan came up for hearing on May 14, 1958. The Court ordered the application to be heard at the time of the hearing of the appeal as it was pointed out that there was a difference of opinion in the Court as to whether limitation under O. XXII of the Code started from the date of death or from the date of knowledge of death. Subsequently, on an application on behalf of the legal representatives, it was ordered that the question of abatement be decided first and thereafter the printing of the record be taken on hand. The application for substitution came up for decision on February 16, 1960. It was dismissed, the Court holding that the Union of India had failed to show that it was prevented from any sufficient cause from continuing the appeal. On February 26, 1960, the appeal itself was dismissed as having abated.

4. On May 14, 1960, an application for leave to appeal to the SC was presented to the High Court. The heading of the application was described to be one for leave to the SC from the judgment dated February 16, 1960, in C. M No 1212/C of 1959 in R. F. A. No 44 of 1955. This application was rejected on May 17, 1960. Thereafter, an application for special leave was filed in this Court. Special leave was prayed for appealing from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab in R. F. A. No. 44 of 1955, and C. M. No. 1212 C of 1959 dated February 16/26 of 1960. The order granting special leave said:

"That special leave be and is hereby granted to the petitioner to appeal to this Court from the judgment and order dated 16th day of February, 1960 and 26th day of February, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Miscellaneous No. 1212-C of 1959 and Regular First Appeal No. 44 of 1955".

A preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the appellant having not applied to the High Court for leave to appeal against the order dated February 26, 1960 in Regular First Appeal, that order had become final and special leave could not be asked for from this Court in view of O. XIII R. 2 of the SC Rules, 1950, the rule being:

"Where an appeal lies to the SC on a certificate issued by the High Court or other tribunal, no application to the SC for special leave to appeal shall be entertained unless the High Court or tribunal concerned has first been moved and it has refused to grant the certificate."

We do not see any force in this objection and reject it. The a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(SC) 150

Cases Referred (1)