Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Sumitra Singh Sardar - Appellant
Versus
Tarini Singh Bhumij - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2393 of 2012
Decided On : 02-08-2018
Order XXII Rule 4(2) CPC allows the legal representative of a deceased defendant to make a defense appropriate to their character.
Headnote:
Order XXII Rule 4(2) CPC - Substituted Representative - The court dismissed the writ petition as the written statement filed by the substituted representative of the defendant was not accepted, citing Order XXII Rule 4(2) CPC which allows any person made a party on the death of a defendant to make a defense appropriate to their character as the legal representative of the deceased defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order that did not accept the written statement filed by the substituted representative of the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioners' failure to take steps for the early hearing of the petition.
Issues: Acceptance of written statement by substituted representative
Ratio Decidendi: Order XXII Rule 4(2) CPC allows the legal representative of a deceased defendant to make a defense appropriate to their character.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 07.04.2012 in Title Suit No. 34 of 2006 by which written statement filed by the substituted representative of the defendant has not been accepted.
3. In this context Order XXII Rule 4(2) CPC is relevant. It provides that any person made a party on death of one of several defendants or of the sole defendant may make any defence appropriate to his character as "legal representative" of the deceased defendant.
4. After this writ petition was filed on 30.04.2012, no step for early hearing of the writ petition was taken by the petitioners. In fact, on 17.05.2012 and 13.06.2012 when the writ petition was listed for hearing, it was adjourned at the instance of the petitioners.
5. In the above facts, the writ petition is dismissed.
