Back
1996(1) Supreme 430
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Puran Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1586 of 1981
Decided on 18-1-1996
Held : As such even if it is held that Order 22 of the Code is not applicable to writ proceedings or writ appeals, it does not mean that the petitioner or the appellant in such writ petition or writ appeal can ignore the death of the respondent if the right to pursue remedy even after death of the respondent survives. After the death of the respondent it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner or the appellant to substitute the heirs of such respondent within a reasonable time. For purpose of holding as to what shall be a reasonable time, the High Court may take note of the period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act for substituting the heirs of the deceased defendant or the respondent. However, there is no question of automatic abatement of the writ proceedings. Even if an application is filed beyond 90 days of the death of such respondent, the Court can take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case for purpose of condoning the delay in filing the application for substitution of the legal representative. This power has to be exercised on well known and settled principles in respect of exercise of discretionary power by the High Court. If the High Court is satisfied that delay, if any, in substituting the heirs of the deceased respondent was not intentional, and sufficient cause has been shown for not taking the steps earlier, the High Court can substitute the legal representative and proceed with the hearing of the writ petition or the writ appeal, as the case may be. At the same time the High Court has to be conscious that after lapse of time a valuable right accrues to the legal representative of the deceased respondent and he should not be compelled to contest a claim which due to the inaction of the petitioner or the appellant has become final. (Para 11)
Held thus : So far the facts of the present appeal is concerned, Bir Singh died on 9th December, 1971. The dispute related to consolidation of holding of lands. After the death of Bir Singh the right title and interest in the land shall be deemed to have devolved on his legal representative. As such the right to pursue the remedy against them survived even after the death of Bir Singh. But for pursuing the claim against the legal representative of Bir Singh, the appellants ought to have taken steps to substitute him. Admittedly, no step was taken on behalf of the appellants till 14th March, 1975. As such the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition and no exception can be taken against the said order. The appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. But there shall be no orders as to cost. (Para 12)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
When a respondent in a writ petition dies and the petitioner does not take steps to substitute the legal heirs on record, the High Court is justified in dismissing the petition due to non-joinder of necessary parties (!) (!) .
The right to pursue a remedy against the deceased respondent survives if the right to sue is not personal and the law permits substitution of the legal heirs, provided that such substitution is made within a reasonable time frame (!) (!) (!) .
Even though procedures under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) may not be directly applicable to writ proceedings, the principle that a writ petition cannot proceed against a dead person without substituting the legal heirs remains valid (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court has the discretion to condone delays in substitution of legal heirs if sufficient cause is shown, and the delay was not intentional. The court can also consider the period prescribed under the Limitation Act for substitution when determining what constitutes a reasonable time (!) (!) (!) .
There is no automatic abatement of a writ petition upon the death of a respondent; the petitioner must actively pursue substitution of the legal heirs to keep the proceedings alive (!) (!) (!) .
The procedure under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution grants the High Court extraordinary powers, and it is not bound strictly by procedural rules of the CPC. The Court can adopt a flexible approach to ensure justice, including allowing substitution of legal heirs even after a significant delay, provided the circumstances justify it (!) (!) (!) .
It is incumbent on the petitioner or appellant to take necessary steps for substitution of the deceased respondent's heirs within a reasonable period, considering the nature of the case and the rights involved (!) (!) (!) .
If no steps are taken within a reasonable time, and the delay is not justified, the High Court is justified in dismissing the petition or appeal for non-joinder of necessary parties (!) (!) .
The High Court exercises its supervisory and discretionary powers to ensure that justice is not defeated by technical procedural requirements, especially in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific aspects of this case.
JUDGMENT
N.P. Singh, J.-This appeal has been filed against an order dated 16th March, 1981 passed by the High Court dismissing the Appeal filed on behalf of the appellants, and affirming the order of dismissal of the writ petition which had been filed on bahalf of Sham Singh, the father of the appellants.
2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the State Government under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 a scheme was prepared by the authorities in respect of holdings belonging to Sham Singh, the father of the appellants, Bir Singh, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Wazir Singh Respondent No. 4, Om Prakash Respondent No. 5 and others in Village Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur. Objections were filed in respect of the said scheme including on behalf of Sham Singh and others against the proposed allotment of land under the scheme. Those objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed on behalf of Sham Singh was accepted by the Settlement Officer, whereas the appeals filed on behalf of Bir Singh and others were rejected. Bir Singh filed further appeals against the orders aforesaid before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, which were rejected. Thereafter revision applications were filed on behalf of Bir Singh and Wazir Singh which were allowed on 15th October, 1965 by the Additional Director, Consolidation, who ordered the changes in the allotment of land. Sham Singh, the father of the appellants filed the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil Writ No. 931 of 1966) for quashing the order dated 15th October, 1965 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Sham Singh died and appellants were substituted in his place. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge on 14th March, 1975 the counsel appearing for Bir Singh who was Respondent No. 2 to the said writ petition informed the court that the said Bir Singh had died on 9th December, 1971 and no application for bringing his legal representative had been made. It was pointed out that the impugned orders in the writ petition were in favour of Bir Singh and as his legal representative had not been substituted, the writ petition ought to be dismissed. The appellants were not in a position to contradict the aforesaid assertion in respect of the death of Bir Singh, Respondent No. 2 to the said writ petition. As such, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed saying that as Bir Singh had died on 9th December, 1971 and no application for bringing the legal representative of the deceased had been made, the writ petition was not maintainable in absence of necessary parties. The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed saying that as the appellants had not taken any steps to bring the legal representative of aforesaid Bir Singh who was respondent to the writ petition, the writ petition had abated. In this connection, reliance was placed by the Division Bench, to the Judgment of five Judges Bench of the same court in the case of Teja Singh v. Union Territory of Chhandigarh and others1, where it had been held that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) was applicable to the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the Writ Rules framed by the said High Court.
3. On behalf of the appellants it was urged that Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has vested extra-ordinary power in the High Court, and the procedure thereof cannot be regulated or controlled by the provisions of the Code because the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has to be exercised for the ends of justice taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. That power cannot be circumscribed by technical procedural rules regarding suit or appeal as provided under the Code.
4. A pers
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
