The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Tribunals have the power to regulate their own procedure and are guided by the principles of natural justice, which may override the strict technical application of procedural rules such as Order 22 Rule 4 and the Limitation Act in certain circumstances.

Narayan Shukla,J.: -

Heard Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.7.2003, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in case No. TA 291 of 2002 (Annexure No.2) as also the order dated 7.12.2005, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in appeal, upholding the order passed by the Tribunal of the original jurisdiction.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent No.3, State Bank of India, being plaintiff filed a regular suit before the court of Civil Judge, Lucknow, which was registered as Regular Suit No.215 of 1991 for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,49,822/- against the respondent No.4, Company as well as its guarantors.

4. During the pendency of the suit before the Civil Court two defendants i.e. defendant No.2 Shri B.R.Dubey and defendant No.4 Shri D.R.Dubey died. In the case at hand the controversy relates to the substitution of legal heirs of Mr.D.R.Dubey, defendant No.4, who died on 24th of December, 1997. The learned counsel for the answering respondent submits that the information of death of Shri D.R.Dubey, was conveyed by the other defendants to the plaintiff in Civil Court on 28.1.1998, whereas vide notification dated 7th of April, 1998 the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur was created and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ceased w.e.f. that date, therefore, the Bank moved an application before the Civil Court on 20.7.1998 for transfer of the case to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur and the case was transferred. Then again it was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and thus the Bank moved the application for substitution of legal heirs of defendant No.4 on 31.1.2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad.

5. The defendants raised objection against the maintainability of the said application being barred by time as according to them the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant, for which there is a provision to make legal representation of the deceased as party and to proceed with the suit. However, sub rule (3) CPC provides that where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is extracted below: -

"4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.- (1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.

(2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.

(3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.

(4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place]

(5) Where-

(a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and

(b) the p