SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Pat) 1259

PATNA HIGH COURT
Barin Ghosh and C.M.Prasad JJ.
Lal Keshri Devi
Versus
Duleshwari Devi
First Appeal No. 943 of 1971 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 28, 2008

The main legal point established is that an application for setting aside abatement is considered an application for condonation of the delay in making an application for substitution, and the applicant must satisfy the court of sufficient cause for the delay.

Headnote:

Order XXII Rule 3 - Legal Representative - The court discussed the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the procedure for making the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant a party to the suit or appeal. The court emphasized the time limits for making such applications, the consequences of abatement, and the requirement to satisfy the court of sufficient cause for delay in making the application.

Fact of the Case:

The application for setting aside abatement was made on the 108th day of the death of one of the appellants. The court allowed the application for setting aside abatement, set aside the abatement, recorded the death of the deceased-appellant, and substituted him by his legal representative.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no necessity of making a separate application for condonation of delay in making the application for substitution, as the application for setting aside abatement is considered an application for condonation of the delay in making an application for substitution.

Issues: The issues involved the application for setting aside abatement, the requirement to satisfy the court of sufficient cause for delay, and the substitution of the deceased-appellant by his legal representative.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3, the time limits for making applications, and the requirement to satisfy the court of sufficient cause for delay in making the application for substitution.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application for setting aside abatement, set aside the abatement, recorded the death of the deceased-appellant, and substituted him by his legal representative.

Judgment

Barin Ghosh and C.M.Prasad JJ.

1. Order XXII Rule 3 sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, amongst others, that where sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court on an application made in that behalf, shall cause legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order XXII of the Code provides that where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased-plaintiff is concerned. Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes the time limit of 90 days to have legal epresentative of a deceased-plaintiff made a party. Therefore, if an application is not made within 90 days to make the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff a party, the suit abates.

2. Rule 11 of Order XXlI of the Code provides that the provisions contained in the said Order shall apply to appeals and the word "plaintiff" shall be held to include an appellant. In the circumstances, if within 90 days an application is not made to make the legal representative of a deceased-appellant a party to the appeal, the appeal abates.

3. Rule 9 of Order XXII of the Code provides that where a suit abates, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action and, accordingly, when an appeal abates, it will have the same effect. Sub-rule (2) Rule 9 of Order XXII of the Code specifically authorizes a legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff or appellant to apply for an order to set aside the order of abatement. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Order XXII makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to. an application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Order XXII of the Code. Section 5 of the Limitation Act authorizes admission of an application after the period of limitation as prescribed, provided the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Therefore, when an application is made for setting aside abatement, it is the requirement of law that the applicant should satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making an application to make legal representative of the deceased-appellant a party to the appeal within the time prescribed therefor. Article 121 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act aliows 60 days time for making an cation for setting aside abatement. Although, within those 60 days time the application for setting aside abatement is required to be made but in the application the applicant must satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application for making the legal representative of the deceased-appellant a party to the appeal within the time prescribed. Therefore, once an application for setting aside the abatement is allowed, the court condones delay in making the application for making legal representative of the deceased-appellant a party to the appeal within the time specified therefor and accordingly the application for making the legal representative of the deceased-appeilant a party to the appeal becomes automatically within time specified for making such an application. Therefore, if an application is made for setting aside abatement prior to expiry of 150 days from the date of death of the sole appellant, alongwith a prayer for substituting his legal representative, and the application for setting aside abatement is allowed, the legal connotation would be that the application for substitution has been made within time.

4. In the instant case admittedly the application for setting aside abatement was made on the 108th day of the death of one of the appellants. There was, therefore, no necessity of making a separate application for condonation of delay in making the application for substitution, inasmuch as by the directions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Order XXII of the Code an application for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top