The main legal point established is that a suit founded on torts abates on the death of the plaintiff, and the right to sue survives in cases where injuries caused to the deceased had tangibly affected his estate or has caused an accretion to the estate of the wrongdoer.

1. Under challenge in this revision petition is an order dated 21.8.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which in a pending suit titled ‘Swaran Kaur versus Charanjit Singh alias Rinku and others’ an application dated 4.3.2015 for impleading Lrs of deceased plaintiff Swaran Kaur had been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during pendency of the civil suit in the trial Court plaintiff Swaran Kaur had expired leaving behind her legal heir/son Sahib Singh. An application was filed to implead legal representatives of the deceased. That application was resisted by the defendants. Vide impugned order the application was dismissed. The operative part of the order is reproduced for ready reference :-

“What now falls for consideration is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was founded on torts or on contract. The present suit of the plaintiff is wholly founded on torts because it is related to the damages sought for by the plaintiff for alleged loss of money and physical and mental pain and hence the suit is based only on the personal injuries of the plaintiff. Hon’ble Apex Court laid down in the case titled as ‘M.Veerappa Vs. Evelyn Sequeira and other’ AIR 1988 (S.C.) 506 that if the entire suit is founded on torts the suit would undoubtedly abate. The present suit is one for the personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, the suit abates on her death as per the maxim action personal is cum moritue persona. The Court is further fortified by the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled as ‘State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh Bhutani’ 2011 (1) Law Herald 88.”

3. Feeling aggrieved the legal representative of the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition. Notice of such revision petition was given to respondents who have put in appearance through counsel.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

5. The suit in question was filed by Smt. Swaran Kaur seeking damages on account of murder of her son Daler Singh by defendants Charanjit Singh etc. In the judgment referred to by counsel for the revision petitioner titled ‘Basant Kaur versus Gajinder Singh’ 1996 (2) R.R.R. 741 by a single Judge of this Court which is with regard to suit for damages filed by plaintiff on account of injuries caused by defendants on body of plaintiff, medical expenses, mental torture, loss in business and efficiency when the plaintiff had died during pendency of the suit it was observed that the right to sue survives because where injuries caused to the deceased had tangibly affected his estate or has caused an accretion to the estate of the wrong doer. This order of the trial Court dismissing the application for Lrs to be impleaded was not justified and Lrs were ordered to be brought on record.

6. As against that the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondents titled ‘M.Veerappa Versus Evelya Sequeria and others’ 1988(1) RLR 218, ‘Daljit Singh versus Yogeshwar Prasad’ 2006(88) DRJ 698, ‘E.I. Ltd. and another versus Klaus Mittelbachert (deceased) through Lrs.’ 2002 AIR (Delhi) 124, ‘Yapi Kredi Bank (Deutschland) AG versus Ashok K. Chauhan and ors.’ 2013(2) BC 460, ‘State of Haryana and others versus Gurcharan Singh Bhutani’ 2011(1) Land L.R. 181, ‘Smt. Sipra Bhowmik and another versus Soumendra Ch. Saha and Ors.’ 2013(2) AICJ 282, ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sivabakkiyam (Deceased) and others’ 2018(2) T.N.M.A.C. 355, ‘H.S. Gambhir and anr. Versus Vam Dev Sharda and ors’ Law Finder Doc ID # 45936, ‘Smt. Ram Ashari and others versus H.R.T.C. and another’ Law Finder Doc ID # 83233, ‘A. Nawab John and others versus V.N. Subramaniyam’ 2012(4) ALL MR 481 are clearly distinguishable due to different facts. In ‘M.Veerappa Versus Evelya Sequeria and others’ (supra) the plaintiff herself had suffered injuries. In that case the suit was founded on torts. In this ca