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

1970 Supreme(MP) 77

S.P.BHARGAVA, A.P.SEN
MUKUNDILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.R.CHOUBEY, H.L.Khaskalam, R.K.Shrivastava,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THIS order disposes of a preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the appeal abates due to the failure of the appellants to bring on record the names of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No. 2 Mukundilal.

( 2. ) THE question whether the appeal abates, partially or as a whole, depends on the nature of the suit and the circumstances of each particular case. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the foot of a mortgage. As a matter of principle, if there is partial abatement, the appeal in such suit necessarily abates as a whole [see Ghanaram v. Balbhadrasai (1938 NLJ Note 22=air 1938 Nag 42=ilr 1938 Nag. 370)]. The question, whether there is partial abatement of the appeal, therefore, assumes importance.

( 3. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel, we are clearly of the opinion that there was no partial abatement of the appeal due to the failure of the appellants to bring on record the names of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No. 2 Mukundilal, as the right to continue the appeal "survives" to the remaining appellants under Order XXII, rule 2 read with rule 11 of the Code of civil Procedure. The word "survives" in that r

















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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top