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

1982 Supreme(All) 187

High Court Of Allahabad
R.R. Rastogi, J.
Prem Narain - Appellant
Versus
Ganga Ram - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 3256 of 1978
Decided on: Feb 23, 1982

Advocates appeared:
S.D.Pathak, V.D.Oza

An application for substitution of legal representatives must be made within 90 days of the date of death. An application for setting aside abatement can be made within 90 days of the date of abatement.

Headnote:

ABATEMENT OF SUIT - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION FILED WITHIN FIVE MONTHS OF DEATH OF PLAINTIFF - WHETHER CAN BE TREATED AS APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE ABATEMENT - ORDER 22 RULE 9(2) CPC - ARTICLE 121 LIMITATION ACT.

Fact of the Case:

During the pendency of a suit, two plaintiffs died. No application for substitution of their heirs and legal representatives was made within 90 days. However, within five months of the date of death of one of the plaintiffs, an application was given for substitution. The trial court held that the suit abated as a whole. The appellate court set aside the order of abatement and directed the trial court to proceed to decide the case on merit.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the application for substitution of legal representatives could not be treated as an application for setting aside the abatement. The suit abated in so far as the deceased plaintiff was concerned.

Issues: Whether an application for substitution of legal representatives filed within five months of the death of a plaintiff can be treated as an application for setting aside abatement.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for substitution of legal representatives must be made within 90 days of the date of death. An application for setting aside abatement can be made within 90 days of the date of abatement. The application for substitution of legal representatives in this case did not contain the date of death of the deceased plaintiff and did not pray for extension of time. Therefore, it could not be treated as an application for setting aside abatement.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed in so far as the deceased plaintiff was concerned. The suit was allowed to continue in so far as the other plaintiffs were concerned.

JUDGMENT

R.R. Rastogi, J.

1. This is an application in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The brief facts are these. Ganga Ram and twenty other persons filed a suit for declaration and injunction. During the pendency of the suit Paras Ram plaintiff no. 2, died on 6-10-1971 and Triveni, plaintiff no. 18, died on 4-9-1971. No application was given for substitution of their heirs and legal representatives within the period of 90 days. However, within five months of the date of death of Triveni an application was given for substitution in which in regard to Paras Ram it was stated that he had left behind him his brothers Kandarp Narain and Udai Narain as his heirs and legal representatives and they were already parties to the suit. Apart from that it was also alleged that Paras Ram had made a gift of his properties in their favour. So far as Triveni was concerned, substitution of his legal representatives was prayed for. In this application, however, the dates of death of these two persons were not mentioned.

2. The trial court after recording the evidence given by the parties held that Paras Ram had died on 6-10-1971 and Triveni on 4-9-1971 and being of the view that since an application for substitution of legal representatives had not been made within 90 days of the death nor any application had been given for setting aside the abatement this application was not maintainable and the suit abated as a whole, ordered accordingly.

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The learned appellate court has taken the view that the application for substitution had been given within five months of the death of the aforesaid two plaintiffs and it should have been treated as an application for setting aside abatement and the trial court should have allowed it. In the result, the appeal has been allowed, the order of abatement has been set aside and the trial court has been directed to proceed to decide the case on merit. The defendants have now come up to this Court by way of this application to revise that order.

3. It is not in dispute that Paras Ram, plaintiff no. 2, died on 6-10-1971. He left behind him his two brothers only as his legal representatives. It is claimed that he had also made a gift of his properties in their favour. Therefore, in his case it was only a matter of giving a formal application for deleting the name of Paras Ram. The suit could not have abated in so far as he was concerned. As for Triveni, he died on 4-9-1971. An application for substitution of his legal representatives should have been given within 90 days of the date of death. No such application was given and hence the suit in so far as Triveni was concerned abated. Now, an application under Order 22 Rule 9 (2) CPC could have been given by the legal representatives for setting aside the abatement. Such an application could have been given within 90 days of the date of abatement under Article 121 of the Limitation Act. The application given for substitution of his legal representatives could not have been on the facts of the case treated as an application for setting aside the abatement. The view taken by the appellate court, therefore, to the contrary is erroneous in law. In this behalf my attention has been invited by the counsel for the defendant applicants to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kundanmal v. Jwala Prasad, AIR 1963 M.P. 183. IT has been laid down in that case that a suit or appeal abates automatically if no application is made for substitution within the prescribed period. The application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on the record made after 90 days of his death may be treated as an application to set aside the abatement, but where the plaintiff did not state the precised date on which the defendant died, nor did he pray for extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act for making the application for setting aside the abatement of the suit, the application for br



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top