Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Topkhanadesh Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kalu – Respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Application No.13222/2014 whereby, an application filed by the respondents no.2/1 to 2/9 under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for taking on record them as legal representatives of deceased Ram Naraian Saini, the power of attorney holder and legatee of the deceased applicant no.2, has been allowed.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 Shri Kaluram and the deceased respondent no.2, Shri Jodharam Saini filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dated 17.05.2014 for setting aside an ex parte judgement and decree dated 07.12.1993 passed against them and late Shri Sheoram in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner herein. During its pendency, stating that not only the original applicant no.2 has expired, but, his power of attorney holder Shri Ram Narain Saini has also expired in whose favour, a Will dated 05.04.2014 was also executed by the applicant no.2 conferring upon him right to contest the litigation and they being the legal representat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of requisite information, supportive material, and veracity in the averments made in an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to treat an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC as an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, allowing for the substitutio....
Procedure is handmaid of justice; delay in substituting legal representatives of deceased defendant condoned where death notice dubious, no timely objection by defendants, preventing harsh abatement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order 22 of CPC are procedural and should not curtail the substantial rights of the parties. The Court emphasized the applic....
Delay/Laches/ limitation - Sufficient cause – Meaning of - The expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision s....
The court emphasized that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement should be considered in light of the circumstances and that a lenient view should be adopted in such case....
Trial court cannot dismiss application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC hyper-technically for omitted date of death or incomplete legal representatives list; must ascertain facts, implead missing parties ....
A decree passed against a deceased party is null and void; proper procedure under Order 22 CPC must be followed to avoid automatic abatement.
The main legal point established is that the timely filing of applications under Order XXII Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the CPC is crucial, and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. Negligence ....
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
