$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 30^th September, 2024 + C.R.P. 226/2024 & CM APPL. 43116/2024 RAJ KISHAN CHABRA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR. ANIL CHABRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Mukherjee and Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocates.

versus BHARAT KALRA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shrey Ashat, Ms. Preetika Mishra and Mr. Vicky Kumar, Advocates for R-2.

Ms. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (Oral)

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Cr.P.C has been filed to challenge the Order dated 13.05.2024 whereby the Learned District Judge has allowed the Application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff.

2. Briefly stated, in the Civil Suit bearing No. 402/2020 titled Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, defendant expired on 07.01.2023. The Application under O.XXII Rule 4 CPC for substitution of LRs of deceased defendant was filed by the respondent on 03.06.2023 which was beyond the period of 90 days during which Signature Not Verified Digitally SignCed.R.P. 226/2024 Page 1 of 10 period the suit stood abated. There was no Application filed for setting aside of the abatement of the Suit. Therefore, it is asserted that the impugned Order dated 13.05.2024 permitting substitution of LRs of the respondent/plaintiff under OXXII Rule 4 CPC in an abated suit, is against the law and is liable to be set aside.

3. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner/ LRs of the defendant that Sh. Raj Kishan Chabra had died on 07.01.2023. The Respondent/plaintiff had ample opportunity to file the Application before the expiry of the Limitation period on 07.04.2024 i.e. the period of 90 days from death of Sh. Raj Kishan Chabra. However, the same was never filed. In fact, the Application for substitution was prepared only on 02.06.2023, as per the supporting affidavit. The Application for substitution of LRs has been filed beyond the period of 90 days during which the suit stood abated. Without there being any Application for setting aside the abatement, the Application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC could not have been allowed.

4. It is further argued that even if the date of knowledge of death is taken as 10.03.2023 as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff, the period is to be reckoned from the date of death and not the knowledge. Even thereafter, the Plaintiff had sufficient time till 07.04.2023 for the period of 90 days to expire. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

5. Reliance has been placed on Union of India vs. Ram Charan & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 215; DSGMC vs. Jagmohan Singh & Ors, 286 (2022) DLT 3; Deepak Verma vs. Daya Nand, 2019:DHC:3103 and Bir Randhir Singh vs. Kartar Singh, 50(1993) DLT 419.

6. Respondent No.3 is the Performa party who is supporting the case of petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Digitally SignCed.R.P. 226/2024 Page 2 of 10

7. None is present on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. Respondent No. 2 however, has argued that they came to know about the demise of the father of the petitioner/Defendant only on 10.03.2023 when an Application for substitution was filed on behalf of the petitioner in a connected Civil Suit in which they are the plaintiff. The Application for substitution has been filed in accordance with law and the present petition is liable to be rejected.

9. Submissions Heard.

10. Admittedly, the Application for substitution of legal heirs under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed on 03.06.2023, which is beyond a period of

90 days from the date of demise of the defendant.

11. The procedure for substitution of legal heirs in case of demise of either party is provided in Order XXII CPC, 1908. Order XXII Rule 3 deals with substitution of legal heirs of deceased plaintiff, while Rule 4 provides for substitution in case of death of one of the several defendants or the sole defendant.

12. Order XXII Rule 4 Sub-Clause 5 d