The absence of limitation for impleading legal representatives as per the Punjab Amendment to Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, and the power of the High Court to regulate its own procedure under Section 122 of CPC.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. This petition has arisen out of the order dated 13.9.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat, whereby, he while holding that the application for impleading the legal representatives of Sohan Lal suffered from delay, upheld the abatement order passed by the trial court on 13.10.1997 and the application for review of the said order was dismissed on 23.8.2006. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners-appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit while pleading that their predecessor-in-interest namely Sohan Lal was a tenant over the piece of land measuring 8 kanals 12 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kurar Ibrahimpur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. The respondents No. 6 to 13 i.e. Landlords sold the piece of land to the respondents No. 1 to 5 without serving notice upon Sohan Lal who exercised his right of pre-emption. Thus, they challenged the sale deed and filed a civil suit for pre-emption. Sohan Lal expired during the pendency of the suit i.e. on 8.12.1992. The application for impleading the L.Rs was filed by the plaintiffs on 6.3.1995. The said application was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sonepat on 13.10.1997. The plaintiffs further averred that the factum with regard to abatement of the suit was never conveyed to them by their counsel namely Ranbir Singh, Advocate. They came to know about the said order dated 13.10.1997 in the month of March, 1999, through Mr. S.P. Jain, Advocate, then they preferred an application on 6.5.1999 for review of the order dated 13.10.1997, but the said application was dismissed on 23.8.2006. The appeal preferred by them against the order dated 13.10.1997 as well as 23.8.2006 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat on 13.9.2008.

3. As regards the first order dated 13.10.1997, it may be observed that there is no denying a fact that a suit for pre-emption was filed on 16.7.1990 by Sohan Lal but he died on 8.12.1992. The counsel duly engaged by Sohan Lal did not apprise the legal representatives of Sohan Lal for three years and ultimately the application for bringing on record the L.Rs was moved on 6.3.1995, which was dismissed on 13.10.1997. The crucial controversy involved in the case is whether there was any limitation in filing application for impleading the legal representatives.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that after the amendment was made by the High Court in Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 of CPC, there is no limitation for impleading the L.Rs. and the only condition precedent for impleading them was the pendency of the suit.

5. Having considered this contention, 1 find merit in the same. Though, the law of limitation is a Central Act, yet, the High Courts by virtue of Section 122 of CPC were not divested with the powers to make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the civil courts subject to the superintendence and may by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the First Schedule. Section 122 of CPC lays down as follows :-

"High Court not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner, may, from time to time after previous publication, make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the Civil Courts subject to their superintendence and may by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the First Schedule."

6. Now it would be appropriate to reproduce the Punjab Amendment made in order 22 Rule 4 CPC, which reads as under :-

"High Court Amendment - [Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh] - In rule 4, sub-rule (3) shall be substituted as follows :-

"(3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub- rule (1) the suit shall not abate as against the deceased- defendant and judgment be pronounced not- withstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place." (ii) In rule 4, the following