An application for amendment of the plaint to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased defendant is a substantial compliance with Order 22, Rule 4, C. P. C., even if it is not in the form contemplated by the rule, and the suit will not abate if such an application is filed within time.

SRINIVASA CHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises under the following circumstances. The appellant is the plaintiff who filed a suit on 18th Amardas 1358 F. (18-9-1948 ). It would appear that during the pendency of the suit in the trial court the sole defendant died on 9-7-1953. This fact of the death of the defendant was brought to the notice of the Court by the defendants vakil on 9th July 1953. The plaintiff instead of filing an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, filed an application for amending the plaint by bringing on record the legal, representatives of the deceased defendant alleging that, as they are the legal representatives, they are liable to pay the amount of the suit. This application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 28th July 1953. On 31st July 1953, the proceedings would show, that the advocates of both the parties were present and the Court passed an order, allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint and directing notice to be issued to the proposed legal representatives find the case appears to have proceeded further. Finally, on 31st March, 1955 the Court passed an order dismissing the suit of the plaintiff On the ground that the suit had abated by reason of the plaintiff not having applied for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant within time. The order says that the record does not show that there was any application to bring on record the legal representatives. The Court did not agree with the contention of the advocate for the plaintiff that the plaintiff, by filing an application for amendment of the plaint by bringing on record the legal representatives, had substantially complied with the provisions of Order 22, C. P. C. Therefore, in the view that the Court held that the application for amendment of the plaint was not an application contemplated by law, it held. that the suit bad abated and dismissed the suit. Against this order, the plaintiff preferred a Civil Misc. Appeal to the lower appellate Court where an objection was taken that no Civil Misc. Appeal would lie against this order and when the Court also was of that opinion, the plaintiff appellant in the lower appellate Court) prayed that if for any reason the Court thought that a Civil Misc. Appeal would not lie, he might be given time to convert it into a regular appeal and to pay the requisite court-fee. This prayer was rejected. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff has now come up in second appeal to this Court.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that no second appeal Jay against an order passed in a Civil Misc. Appeal and relied upon Section 104 (2), C. P. C. With regard to this objection it has to be stated that the order cannot be regarded as an adjudication or a final order in the Civil Misc. Appeal coming within Section 104 (2 ). The order only rejected the appeal as !being incompetent. Where, therefore, the order cannot be regarded as coming within Section 104 (2), that section cannot be a bar to an appeal against an order that had been passed. Further, if it is an order rejecting an appeal it would come under the definition of a decree under Section 2 and if it is a decree, an appeal would certainly lie. That the appellate Court has the same powers as the original Court in passing orders is also clear from Section 107 (2) of the C. P. C. This order, in my opinion, is only an order rejecting the appeal and Section 107 (2) read with Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. , would bring it within the definition of a decree under Section 2. This preliminary objection, therefore, fails.

( 3 ) AS regards the merits, the order passed by the trial Court has been under a misapprehension. The trial Court says that the application for amending the plaint was filed on 31st July, 1954. This is an obvious mistake. The date on die application for the amendment of the plaint as found on the reverse of the application is 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document