A suit filed against a deceased person is a nullity, but if it involves multiple parties, it may not abate; procedural lapses can be corrected to serve substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ropar dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.1989 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Kharar, vide which the suit filed by the Punjab & Sind Bank (plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 35994/- was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff (Punjab & Sind Bank) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 35994/- including interest up to 05.02.1987 and future interest @14.5% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization against the defendants (Jagrotam Dass-defendant No.1 and G.S. Dhami-defendant No.2).

3.1. The case set up by the plaintiff was that on a request having been made by defendant No.1, a term loan of Rs.25000/- was advanced to defendant No.1 for the promotion of electrical business. Defendant No.1 executed and signed the requisite loan documents including promissory note, agreement of hypothecation and other documents on 07.02.1984. The loan was repayable along with interest @ 2% per annum over and above the rate of Reserve Bank of India subject to minimum of 12% per annum with quarterly rests. Monthly installments of Rs.500/- each were fixed. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for defendant No.1 and executed guarantee agreement dated 07.02.1984.

3.2 The defendants were unable to maintain the financial discipline resulting in their account becoming irregular. Despite repeatedly having been called upon to clear the loan, the same was not done. Under the circumstances, the suit was filed.

3.3 During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 expired as a result of which his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed their written statement opposing the suit. They stated that they were the legal heirs of Narotam Dass and not Jagrotam Dass who had taken the loan from the plaintiff. They denied having any concern either with the loan stated to have been taken or with Jagrotam Dass. It was also averred that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff in connivance with defendant No.4 and all loan documents etc. were forged and fabricated documents. An objection was also raised that the suit had been filed against a dead person as a result of which it was a nullity.

4. A separate written statement was filed by the guarantor (originally defendant No.2 and subsequently defendant No.4). He took a stand that one Jai Parkash S/o Charan Dass was known to him and was a close relative of Jagrotam Dass @ Narotam Dass. Defendant No.4 had gone to the Bank for his personal work as he had an account in the said Bank. On the asking of the Branch Manager and Jai Parkash, he identified Jagrotam Dass @ Narotam Dass. It was averred that Jai Parkash and Jagrotam Dass @ Narotam Dass had played a fraud with the Bank in connivance with each other. A stand was taken that Narotam Dass and Jagrotam Dass were the same persons. Other averments were denied.

5. In the replication submitted to the written statement filed by defendants No.1 to 3, it was stated that Narotam Dass and Jagrotam Dass were one and the same person and that he had been introduced to the Bank by defendant No.4. Other averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

5.1 A separate replication to the written statement filed by defendant No.4 was also filed and the allegations of fraud etc. were denied. All other averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

6. From