Back
REKHA BORANA
Ram Kishore Khunteta – Appellant
Versus
LRs. of Jai Shiv Singh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.03.2023 whereby the application under Order XXII Rule 3 r.w. section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed and the application under Order XXII Rule 9, CPC as preferred by the defendant for abatement of the suit has been rejected.
2. The arguments of counsel for the defendant-petitioner are three fold. Firstly, after the death of plaintiff Jai Shiv Singh, the landlord, no application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed within the prescribed time and hence, the suit abated. Secondly, only the wife, son and daughter of the deceased plaintiff Jai Shiv Singh have been sought to be substituted whereas the four sisters of Jai Shiv Singh are also his legal representatives and they also deserve to be impleaded/substituted in place of him. Thirdly, the suit property is an ancestral property and hence, the sisters of the deceased plaintiff, being the coparceners, would also fall in the category of legal representatives.
3. The Trial Court reached to a specific finding that plaintiff Jai Shiv Singh expired on 04.09.2021 and application under Order
Legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff are defined as first class heirs under CPC, excluding siblings when surviving heirs exist.
Substitution of legal representative of deceased plaintiff in eviction suit – Tenant has no locus standi to aver as to who would be legal representatives of plaintiff landlord.
Joint representation by surviving defendants suffices to prevent abatement of a suit when one defendant dies, as long as the estate is substantially represented.
The amendment to Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC aims to ensure the continuation and culmination of effective adjudication and to prevent the proceedings from coming to an end summarily due to the death....
The main legal point established is that legal representatives are entitled to implead themselves and continue a suit under Order XXII Rule 9 C.P.C, and that rules and procedures should serve the cau....
The amendment to Order 22 Rule 3 CPC rendered the 90-day limitation period inapplicable for impleading the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff, as discussed in the case.
An executor derives legal authority from a Will upon the testator's death, allowing a substituted plaintiff with vested interests under the Will to pursue litigation, regardless of the pending probat....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adjudicating on the substitution of deceased defendants' legal representatives, exemption to the plaintiff, and abatement, and....
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....
The trial court erred by abating the suit without proper inquiry into legal representation, as abatement is procedural and not substantive, requiring adherence to the principles laid out under Order ....
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
