Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In under the , managing parties to a suit is crucial for fair and effective adjudication. A common question arises: Can an under be later deleted under ? This issue pits specific substitution rules against broad discretionary powers, often leading to confusion in ongoing suits. Understanding this distinction can prevent procedural missteps and ensure suits progress without unnecessary .
This post breaks down the legal principles, key case law, and practical implications, drawing from authoritative judgments. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Generally, an under cannot be automatically or arbitrarily deleted under . These provisions serve different legal purposes and operate in distinct circumstances. specifically addresses substitution of when a defendant dies during the , preventing and allowing the suit to continue against the deceased's estate 1974 0 Supreme(All) 47.
In contrast, provides courts with wide discretion to add or strike out parties at any stage if their presence is necessary for complete settlement of all questions involved 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5. While flexible, this power does not override the targeted mechanism of without justification 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1838.
This rule applies only when a defendant dies during the subsistence of the suit. It mandates bringing on record to avoid . As held in relevant judgments, Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC applies only in the case where the death of one of the several defendants or the sole defendant occurs during the subsistence of the suit 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212. Its aim is continuity, not general party management.
empowers courts to strike out or add parties for effective adjudication. Courts have noted its expansive scope: Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. ... of the Code gives wide discretion to the court 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1838
Rekha Kapoor vs Pawan Chandra (Dr.)
.However, this discretion is judicial, not routine. It applies in varied scenarios, such as impleading transferees , but typically under for substitutions due to assignment, not death 2015 0 Supreme(All) 264 2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 861.
| Aspect | | ||--------|-----------------|---------------------|| Trigger | Death during suit | Any stage, necessity for adjudication || Purpose | Prevent , substitute LRs | Add/delete for complete resolution || Scope | Specific to death | Broad discretion || Automatic? | Mandatory substitution | Judicial exercise required |
This judgment clarifies that is limited to deaths during the suit. If a defendant dies before filing, cannot be impleaded under this rule, and the suit does not abate solely due to prior death 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212. It underscores non-interchangeability with general provisions.
The emphasized: An application under of the Code comes into the picture only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit and the application to bring on record the of a deceased defendant can be made under Order 1 Rule 10 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5. Yet, once impleaded under Rule 4, deletion requires specific grounds.
Reaffirming discretion under , the Court noted it can be invoked to delete or add parties, including , whenever necessary for effective adjudication 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.
Additional precedents highlight limits:- Purchasers may be impleaded under , not automatically Order 1 Rule 10, showing provision-specific application 2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 861 2015 0 Supreme(All) 264.- Courts treat mislabeled applications (e.g., under Order 1 instead of ) substantively if ingredients are met, but stress judicial scrutiny 2012 0 Supreme(Ori) 109.
Once substituted under , the legal representative's position is anchored in the death event. Deletion under is not automatic but possible if:- Their presence is no longer necessary for effective adjudication.- Facts justify striking out, via 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.
Arbitrary deletion undermines Order 22's anti- goal. As in Gurucharan Singh, Rules 4 and 9 of Order 22 abate the suit against the deceased but protect against fresh suits without substitution—deletion must align with this 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212.
Related contexts, like transferees, reinforce: They can join under but not as a blanket under Order 1 Rule 10 without necessity 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1545 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 258.
Rekha Kapoor vs Pawan Chandra (Dr.)
.In summary, while offers flexibility, it does not permit casual deletion of parties impleaded under the specific . Deletion requires a reasoned finding that the party's presence is no longer essential for complete adjudication 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.
Key Takeaways:- is mandatory for death substitutions; is discretionary.- No automatic deletion—judicial exercise mandatory.- Precedents emphasize contextual application to avoid procedural errors.
Stay informed on CPC nuances to safeguard your litigation interests. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal professional.
References:- 1974 0 Supreme(All) 47, 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5, 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212, 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1838,
Rekha Kapoor vs Pawan Chandra (Dr.)
, 2015 0 Supreme(All) 264, 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 258, 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1545, 2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 861, 2012 0 Supreme(Ori) 109 #CPCRules, #ImpleadmentLaw, #LegalSubstitution
Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The I.A.No.I filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed with no order as to costs. ... Point No.2: In furtherance of my findings to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER I.A..No.25 filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule #HL_START....
However, the same cannot be construed to mean that when a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry by the court and without any objections, the party can approach the court anytime later and seek his deletion from the array of parties by filing an ... The undisputed facts reveals that the petitioner, along with other legal heirs of Jameela Beevi, were impleaded after due enquiry u....
I find no force in the submission made by Shri Purohit that as the application for substitution itself had been field under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, they shall be deemed to have been impleaded under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for the reason that in case of death ... of one of the parties, the application for substitution is always filed under....
*** 22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. ... Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. ... Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the court....
*** 22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. ... Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. ... Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the cou....
The bare reading of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code makes it clear that Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code applies only in the case where the death of one of the several defendants or the sole defendant occurs during the subsistence of the suit. ... If one of the defendants has expired prior to the filing of the suit, the legal representatives of such deceased defendant cannot be brought on record in the suit under Order #HL_....
Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. ... It is true that the application which the appellant made was only under Order I Rule 10 CPC but the enabling provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so dem....
of Late Kalyan Tirkey and Grace Panna Tirkey on 13.01.2021 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleadment as party to the suit, has been allowed. ... This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid fact needs to refer herein the provision of Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. which reads hereunder as:- “10(2) Court may strike out or add parties. ... But this general rule....
It is, therefore, apparent that the assignee of suit property, pending CR No.2678 of 2011 (6) adjudication of a lis, cannot be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but may be allowed to continue or defend the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, by stepping into the shoes of the party ... Order 22 Rule #HL_....
XXIII Rule 1 of the Code, can the third party in jeopardy be permitted to be substituted for the withdrawing plaintiff and granted leave to prosecute the suit; or in any event, impleaded as a plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code and permitted to pursue the suit? ... XIII Rule 1 of the Code, if the case be of collusion affecting rights of third parties etc., and still the Court would retain jurisdiction to substitute under #HL....
However, the question will be one of due diligence. So far as allowing a party to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) or Order 22 Rule 10, or Order 41 Rule 20 is concerned the discretion has to be exercised by the court judicially. There is no bar of the transferee pendente lite being impleaded as a party under O. 22, R. 10 at the appellate stage.
It is correct that purchasers pendente lite are not entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, they are entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Consequently, impleadment of respondents no.5 and 6 as party to the suit shall be deemed to be under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and not under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but for this reason, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by respondents no.5 and 6 is not required to be dismissed merely because wrong provision of law has b....
Even if an application has been filed under Order 1, Rule 10, labelling the application being misconceived, the Court should ignore the labelling of the application as one under Order 1, Rule 10 and treat the same as one filed under Order 22, Rule 10 (1), C.P.C., if the ingredients thereof are satisfied. This aspect of the law was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided Pranakrushna's case (supra) and rejected the application of the pendente lite transferee solely upon a consideration of the principles embodied in Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C." Assuming that he is ....
LINGARAJA MOHANTY -V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] (opp. party No.9) be impleaded as a party either Under Ofder-1, Rule-10 or Under Order-22, Rule-10 C.P.C. The rule is based not on the doctrine of notice but on principle of expediency and public policy.
He filed sepa¬rate written statement pleading therein that there was never any partition in the family at any time and that the family still continues to be joint. 4. Defendant No.2 got himself impleaded as a party by filing a petition under Order 10, Rule 1, C.P.C. He claimed that his father Late Sadhu being one of the sons of Jata had a share in the family property and accordingly, he is entitled to 1/4th share in the entire family property.
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
