The legal principle established is that in cases where the suit claim is founded partly on torts and partly on contract, the part relating to torts may abate while the part relating to contract may survive. Additionally, if the injuries tangibly affected the estate or caused an accretion to the estate of the wrongdoer, the suit shall continue.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants to assail the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court while allowing the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) to bring on record the legal representatives of the plaintiff (respondent herein) while dismissing the petitioners’ application to dismiss the suit on the ground that it has abated on account of the death of the plaintiff.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners while relying upon M. Veerappa vs. Evelyn Sequeira and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 556, submits that the suit for damages and compensation on account of the bodily injuries suffered abates with the death of the injured and, therefore, the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent, while relying upon the judgment passed in Basant Kaur vs. Gajinder Singh and Others, 1995 (3) PLR 505, contends that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the suit.

5. Firstly, it shall be noted here that late Sh.Satbir Singh had filed a suit for decree of declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get compensation as damages on account of the injuries caused by the defendants with the help of their family members on 14.11.2012. It has been alleged that he along with his wife, father and other family members were sitting in the courtyard when the defendants along with their family members entered their house and caused injuries to them with the help of weapons. He received grievous injuries and an FIR No. 135, dated 15.11.2012, under Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) was registered at Police Station Behal, against the defendants and their family members. Both the defendants including their family members were arrested. They were also convicted by the Court of Sessions vide judgment dated 15.09.2015, and were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment while claiming that the condition of the plaintiff became critical day by day due to the injuries suffered by him which forced the plaintiff’s family to shift him to the C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar, for better treatment and they have incurred expenditure of nearly Rs. 5,00,000/- on medical treatment and transportation etc. He has suffered permanent disability due to the attack and is now unable to even sit and stand without the help of others.

6. As already noticed, after the plaintiff died, an application filed under order XXII Rule 3 CPC to bring on record his legal representatives was allowed.

7. This Court has carefully read the judgment passed in M. Verappa’s case (supra). The aforesaid suit was filed against an Advocate who firstly filed the Special Leave Petition after a considerable delay and subsequently withdrew the same without any instructions from the plaintiff. The Supreme Court examined the context in which the expression ‘other personal injuries’ has been used under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Ultimately, the Supreme Court permitted the suit to continue while making certain observations that if the entire suit claim is founded on torts, the suit would undoubtedly abate, however, if the action is founded partly on torts and partly on contract, then such part of the claim as it relates to torts would stand abated and the other part relating to the contract shall survive.

8. In Basant Kaur’s case (supra), after examining the judgment passed in M.Verappa’s case (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held that if the injuries tangibly affected his estate or has caused an accretion to the estate of the wrong doer, then the suit shall continue as the maxim of ‘actio personalis cum moritur persona’ would not be applicable. The Delhi High Court i