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

1923 Supreme(Mad) 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Oldfield
Govindu Kaviraj Purohito
Versus
Gauranga Saw And Ors. And Vogadhu
Decided On : 16 February, 1923

An appeal cannot be presented against a party who is deceased, and the power to amend the cause title or excuse the delay may not be applicable in such cases.

Headnote:

Amendment - Cause Title - The court dismissed the application to amend the cause title in a Second Appeal and to excuse the delay, as an appeal cannot be presented against a person who has ceased to exist.

Fact of the Case:

The applications to the Court were to amend the cause title in a Second Appeal and to excuse the delay in seeking that relief, as the respondent had died before the presentation.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the applications and the Second Appeal on the ground that no such proceeding as an appeal against a party who is deceased is authorized by the Code.

Issues: Amendment of cause title, Excuse for delay, Appeal against deceased party

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal cannot be presented against a person who has ceased to exist, and the power to amend the cause title or excuse the delay was not applicable in this case.

Final Decision: The applications to amend the cause title and excuse the delay were dismissed, and the Second Appeal was also dismissed. No costs in the Second Appeal, but the petitioner will pay the respondents' costs in the petitions.

JUDGMENT

Oldfield, J.

1. These are applications to the Court to amend the cause title in a Second Appeal and to excuse the delay in seeking that relief. It will of course be unnecessary to consider the second application, unless the first succeeds. The circumstances, in which the amendment is asked for are that the respondent, whose name is entered in the appeal as presented, died before the presentation. We are now asked to substitute for his name those of his legal representatives. The objection to this is that an appeal cannot be presented against a person who has ceased to exist. Order 1, Rule 10 is relied on, but we do not see our way to apply it here since it refers only to suits instituted in the name of a wrong person, and we do not think that it is applicable to a case, such as the present. The power conferred by Section 153 is general, but again we do not think we ought to use it, while another course is open to the petitioner, that course being to file another appeal and to have the delay due to his mistake committed in good faith excused. Taking this view we must dismiss these applications and also the Second Appeal on the ground that no such proceeding as an appeal against a party, who is deceased, is authorised by the Code. There will be no costs in the Second Appeal but the petitioner will pay the respondents costs in the petitions.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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