Deletion of a deceased defendant from a suit is valid when legal representatives are already impleaded; this does not prevent contesting their title.

ORDER (Oral)

O.A.25/2021

1. This is an appeal challenging an order dated 28th September, 2021, passed by the Joint Registrar to the extent the order allows I.A.3868/2021, preferred by the plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. The impugned order, to the extent the appellant is aggrieved thereby, reads as under:

"IA 3868/2021 (under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of Lrs of deceased defendant no.2 Sh. L.R. Gupta)

3. Mr. Vashisht's essential contention is that Defendants 4 and 6 are not entitled to be treated as legal representatives of the deceased Defendant 2, Mr. L.R. Gupta. He expresses an apprehension that the plaintiff may use the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar as evidence of title of Defendants 4 and 6 in the estate of the deceased Defendant 2.

4. Mr. Vashisht also submits that Defendant 2 could not have been deleted from the array of parties, but that Defendant 2, having expired, would have to continue to remain a party to the suit albeit through his legal representatives, who, according to Mr. Vashisht, is Defendant 3 alone and not Defendants 4 and 6.

5. Regarding the submission that Defendant 2 would have to continue to remain a party in the suit even after he expired, I do not find anything in the CPC which supports this submission. Rather, Order I Rule 3 of the CPC specifically requires persons to be impleaded as defendants. Once a person has expired, I find nothing irregular in the decision of the Joint Registrar to delete the deceased defendant from the array of parties.

6. Insofar as the apprehension, expressed by Mr. Vashisht, of the possibility of any one of the parties to the litigation using the impugned order dated 28th September, 2021 as a ground to urge title, or interest of Defendants 4 to 6 in the estates of the deceased Defendant No. 2, the apprehension may, in my view, be assuaged by a clarification that the order dated 28th September, 2021, shall merely be treated as impleading the persons who, according to the plaintiff, were the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It shall not preclude any of the other parties to the litigation including the present appellant from questioning, at any stage, the title or entitlement of Defendants 4 and 6 to the estate of the deceased Defendant No.2.

7. With the aforesaid clarification, this appeal stands disposed of.

I.A. 13872/2021 & I.A. 13873/2021

8. In view of the order passed in O.A. 25/2021, these applications also stand disposed of.