AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village VS Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs...

Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village VS Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1040 : हां, सीपीसी के ऑर्डर 22 के नियम 4 में लिमिटेशन एक्ट का सेक्शन 5 लागू होता है। इस दस्तावेज में स्पष्ट रूप से बताया गया है कि ऑर्डर 22 के नियम 4 के तहत मृत उत्तरदाता के विधिक प्रतिनिधि को अपील में शामिल करने के लिए आवेदन करने की समयसीमा 90 दिन है (आर्टिकल 120), और अबाटमेंट को खारिज करने के लिए आवेदन करने की समयसीमा 60 दिन है (आर्टिकल 121)। सेक्शन 5 के तहत, यदि आवेदक समय सीमा के भीतर आवेदन नहीं कर सका, तो उसे अगर उसे ''''पर्याप्त कारण'''' मिले, तो आवेदन को बाहरी समय सीमा के बाद भी स्वीकार किया जा सकता है। इसके अलावा, नियम 4(5) में स्पष्ट रूप से बताया गया है कि यदि अपीलकर्ता को उत्तरदाता की मृत्यु के बारे में ज्ञान नहीं था, तो ऐसी स्थिति में उसे सेक्शन 5 के तहत ''''पर्याप्त कारण'''' माना जाएगा। इसलिए, ऑर्डर 22 के नियम 4 के लिए लिमिटेशन एक्ट का सेक्शन 5 लागू होता है।Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Intnl. Security And Intelligence Agency LTD. ...

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Intnl. Security And Intelligence Agency LTD. - 2003 1 Supreme 923 : हां, आर्बिट्रेशन एक्ट, 1940 की धारा 39 के तहत अपील में नियम 22 के तहत सी.पी.सी., 1908 की सीमा अवधि (सेक्शन 5) लागू होती है। जब एक प्रतिवादी अपील के खिलाफ क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्शन दायर करता है, तो इसके लिए सीमा अवधि का नियम 5 भी लागू होता है। यह अवधि अपील के नोटिस के सेव करने की तारीख से शुरू होती है, और यह तभी लागू होती है जब अपील वैध और लंबित हो। यदि मूल अपील अयोग्य या अमान्य है, तो क्रॉस ऑब्जेक्शन को भी मंजूरी नहीं मिलती और इसे मुद्दे पर नहीं सुना जाता।Checking relevance for Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia VS Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs...

Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia VS Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs - 2017 7 Supreme 727 : Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading legal representatives of a deceased party who died prior to filing of the suit. The court held that even though an application under Order XXII Rule 4 is not maintainable when the defendant dies before the suit is filed, the legal representatives can still be brought on record under Order I Rule 10, subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This means that Section 5 of the Limitation Act (which deals with the computation of time) does not apply in such cases; instead, Section 21 of the Limitation Act governs the condonation of delay and the date from which the suit is deemed to have been instituted, provided the plaintiff acted in good faith.Checking relevance for Chandra Bai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. VS Khandalwal Vipra Vidyalaya Samiti...

Chandra Bai (Dead) Thr. Lrs. VS Khandalwal Vipra Vidyalaya Samiti - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 1415 : हाँ, आदेश 22, नियम 10 के तहत लिस पेंडेंस ट्रांसफी द्वारा हस्तांतरित दावेदार को रिकॉर्ड में शामिल करने का अधिकार एक निरंतर अधिकार है और इसके लिए कोई समय सीमा निर्धारित नहीं है। इसलिए, नियम 5 के अंतर्गत समय सीमा लागू नहीं होती है। न्यायालय ने यह स्पष्ट किया है कि आदेश 22, नियम 10 के तहत आवेदन करने का अधिकार निरंतर है और इसे विचाराधीन मामले के दौरान किसी भी समय किया जा सकता है। इसलिए, समय सीमा का अनुपालन नहीं करने के कारण आवेदन अस्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता है।Checking relevance for Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh...

Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557 : हां, आईएलएम (Limitation Act, 1963) का धारा 5, आर्डर 22 नियम 9 के अन्तर्गत लगू होता है। आर्डर 22 नियम 9(3) के अनुसार, आबेटमेंट को सेट अप करने के लिए दायर आवेदन पर आईएलएम की धारा 5 के नियम लागू होते हैं। इसका मतलब है कि आबेटमेंट को सेट अप करने के लिए दायर आवेदन के लिए ''''पर्याप्त कारण'''' के बारे में धारा 5 के नियमों का प्रयोग किया जाता है।

AI Overview...

Limitation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on CPC Order 22 Order 22 ke provisions, including Rule 4 and Rule 9, are procedural in nature and generally applicable to suits and proceedings where abatement or substitution of legal representatives is involved. ["Yeshwantrao Sabnis VS Bhalchandrarao - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Champa Bai S/o Salikram VS Bholaram S/o Salikram - Chhattisgarh"]
Rule 4 of Order 22 specifies that legal representatives can only defend the suit in a limited manner, and the scope of their defense is confined to the estate of the deceased. Order 22 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code provides that a legal representative can make only such defence as... ["Yeshwantrao Sabnis VS Bhalchandrarao - Madhya Pradesh"]
Rule 9 of Order 22 deals with abatement of suits upon death of a party and allows for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but its application is subject to the procedural rules and the nature of the proceedings. Order 22 Rule 9(3) of CPC, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to the application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of CPC. ["Champa Bai S/o Salikram VS Bholaram S/o Salikram - Chhattisgarh"]
The applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to limitations under Order 22 is explicitly recognized, but only in procedural contexts and with the condition that sufficient cause is shown for delay. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to the application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of CPC. ["Champa Bai S/o Salikram VS Bholaram S/o Salikram - Chhattisgarh"]
Courts have clarified that provisions of Order 22 do not override the Limitation Act, and the application of Section 5 is limited to procedural aspects, not substantive rights. The provisions under Order 22 of CPC are not penal in nature. ["Champa Bai S/o Salikram VS Bholaram S/o Salikram - Chhattisgarh"]
In cases of abatement due to death, the Court’s jurisdiction to condone delay under Section 5 is recognized, but the legal position is that such applications are of a summary nature and limited to representation purposes. An inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC is only for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased in a pending proceeding. ["Nizamul Hai @ Titu VS U. P. Sunni Central WAQF - Allahabad"] ["NIZAMUL HAI @ TITU VS U. P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF - Allahabad"]
The main point is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings under Order 22, but only to the extent that procedural delays are condoned, and it does not extend to substantive rights beyond procedural limitations. The legal position is that the determination of who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 is only for the purpose of bringing the legal representative. ["Nizamul Hai @ Titu VS U. P. Sunni Central WAQF - Allahabad"]

Analysis and Conclusion:While Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to certain applications under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 for condonation of delay, its application is strictly procedural. The provisions of Order 22, especially Rules 4 and 9, are designed to regulate the substitution and abatement of suits due to death, and Section 5 facilitates condoning delays in these processes. However, Section 5 does not alter the fundamental procedural nature of Order 22 or extend beyond its scope. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Order 22 in limited procedural contexts, but its application is subject to the specific circumstances of each case and the court's discretion. ["Yeshwantrao Sabnis VS Bhalchandrarao - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Champa Bai S/o Salikram VS Bholaram S/o Salikram - Chhattisgarh"]

Does Limitation Section 5 Apply to CPC Order 22?

In civil litigation in India, the death of a party during proceedings can complicate matters significantly. A common query among litigants and lawyers is: Kya CPC ke Order 22 par Limitation ka Sec 5 lagu hota hai? (Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to Order 22 of the CPC?). This question arises frequently when dealing with substitution of legal representatives (Rule 4) or setting aside abatement (Rule 9). Understanding this is crucial to avoid dismissal of suits or appeals due to procedural lapses.

This blog post breaks down the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963—which allows condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause—to Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). We'll draw from key judicial precedents and practical insights to provide clarity.

Understanding Order XXII CPC: Death of Parties

Order XXII governs the scenario where a plaintiff or defendant dies during the pendency of a suit, appeal, or proceeding. Key rules include:

Rule 4: Substitution of legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant. The application must be filed within 90 days from the date of death.
Rule 9: Setting aside abatement if no application under Rule 4 was filed in time, provided sufficient cause is shown.

Failure to act timely can lead to abatement, potentially dismissing the case. But does Section 5 of the Limitation Act come to the rescue for delays?

Main Legal Position: Section 5's Applicability

Generally, Section 5 applies to applications under Order XXII Rule 9 for setting aside abatement, but not directly or automatically to applications under Rule 4 for substitutionBalwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557.

Applicability to Rule 9 (Setting Aside Abatement)

Applications under Rule 9 are treated akin to condonation petitions. Courts have held that principles of Section 5 are squarely applicable here. For instance:

applications under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC for setting aside abatement are to be treated similarly to applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and principles of Section 5 are applicable. Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557

This allows courts to condone delays if the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause, such as lack of knowledge of death Shive Cooperative Housing Society VS Shri Chauthmal - 2001 Supreme(Raj) 1094.

Applicability to Rule 4 (Substitution of Legal Representatives)

Rule 4 prescribes a strict 90-day limit from the date of death. Section 5 does not automatically extend this period. The Supreme Court in Ram Sumiran v. D.D.C. distinguished the two:

The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumiran v. D.D.C. (1985) 1 SCC 431 and similar cases have distinguished between applications under Rule 4 and Rule 9, indicating that the latter can invoke Section 5 for condonation of delay, whereas the former is bound by the limitation period specified in Rule 4. Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia VS Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs - 2017 7 Supreme 727

However, if an application under Rule 4 is delayed beyond 90 days, Section 5 may be invoked alongside Rule 9 proceedings, subject to court's discretion Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village VS Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1040. Courts emphasize that once abatement occurs due to inaction, a valuable right accrues to the other side, not lightly disturbed without strong cause Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557.

Key Case Laws and Judicial Insights

Several rulings clarify this nuanced position:

AIR 1962 SC 361Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557: Stresses that delay condonation under Section 5 applies where sufficient cause is shown, particularly for Rule 9 applications. Once a valuable right accrues due to failure to act within prescribed limitation periods, that right cannot be taken away merely because of delay.
AIR 1964 SC 215Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557: Reinforces Section 5's role in Rule 9 matters.
Letters Patent Appeals ContextMahendra Singh VS Sohan Raj - 1973 Supreme(Raj) 51: Provisions of Order 22 and Section 5 apply even to special appeals where no contrary procedure exists. provisions of sec. 117 C.P.C. including Order 22, C.P.C. are applicable to Letters Patent appeals.
Specific Performance SuitShive Cooperative Housing Society VS Shri Chauthmal - 2001 Supreme(Raj) 1094: Court rejected delayed substitution under Rule 4(5)(a) as applicant failed to prove ignorance of death or sufficient cause. Appellant failed to prove (i) the fact of ignorance of the death of sole respondent (ii) failed to show sufficient cause for not substitution under Order 22 Rule 4(5)(a) C.P.C.

These cases highlight that while Rule 4 is rigid, courts may exercise power under Section 151 CPC alongside Section 5 in exceptional circumstances, but success hinges on evidence.

Exceptions and Practical Limitations

Within 90 Days: No need for Section 5; file under Rule 4 directly Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village VS Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1040.
Post-90 Days: Abatement presumed; apply under Rule 9 with Section 5 invocation. Prove 'sufficient cause' like delayed knowledge of death or bona fide mistake.
Representative Suits: Order 22 may not apply fully if parties are not 'legal representatives' under representative capacity Rai Mathura Prasad VS Hanuman Prasad Bhagat - 1984 Supreme(Pat) 51.
Indivisible Decrees: Appeal abates wholly on one appellant's death if decree indivisible, unaffected by Section 5 KASINATH MUDULI VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2006 Supreme(Ori) 865.

Courts apply Section 29(2) of Limitation Act to special proceedings, implying Section 5's availability unless excluded Mahendra Singh VS Sohan Raj - 1973 Supreme(Raj) 51.

Recommendations for Litigants and Advocates

To navigate these provisions effectively:

Monitor Party Status: Upon notice of death, immediately gather heir details and file Rule 4 application within 90 days.
Document Sufficient Cause: For delays, maintain affidavits on ignorance, communication gaps, or logistical issues.
Invoke Correctly: Specify Section 5 in prayers for Rule 9; distinguish from Rule 4.
Seek Early Court Directions: In complex cases, pray for extension or clarification.
Appeals: Same rules apply; abatement fatal if indivisible KASINATH MUDULI VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2006 Supreme(Ori) 865.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

In summary, Section 5 of the Limitation Act typically aids Rule 9 applications to set aside abatement but does not automatically relax Rule 4's 90-day limit for substitution. Courts grant condonation discretionarily upon sufficient cause, safeguarding procedural justice without undermining limitation principles Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia VS Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs - 2017 7 Supreme 727.

Key Takeaways:- Rule 4: Strict 90 days; Section 5 invocable post-abatement via Rule 9.- Rule 9: Section 5 directly applicable.- Always substantiate delays with evidence.

This post provides general information based on judicial trends and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Stay updated with CPC amendments and local rulings.

References:- Balwant Singh VS Jagdish Singh - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 557, Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia VS Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs - 2017 7 Supreme 727, Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village VS Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1040, Mahendra Singh VS Sohan Raj - 1973 Supreme(Raj) 51, Shive Cooperative Housing Society VS Shri Chauthmal - 2001 Supreme(Raj) 1094, Rai Mathura Prasad VS Hanuman Prasad Bhagat - 1984 Supreme(Pat) 51, KASINATH MUDULI VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2006 Supreme(Ori) 865

#CPCOrder22, #LimitationActSec5, #LegalAbatement

State (Nct. of Delhi) VS Jitender Sharma - 2019 Supreme(Del) 546

Ha, harniya ka Q. kya Vanshika ka bhi harniya ka operation hua hai ? Ans. Nahi Q. Kya aap sab bhai behein school jate hai ? Ans. Pata nahi Q. Kya apne Vanshika ke paith par operation ka Nishan dekha hai ?

PARVEEN BEGUM VS APPELLATE AUTHORITY - 2012 Supreme(Del) 1421

Aapke ladke ki wife nahi dena chahti, lekin aap doosri family se lena chahtey hain. (c) Interviewer : Kyonki aisa hai ki pehle to maa baap ke liye beta beti ka hota hai farz, ya beta beti ke liye ma baap ka hota hai. Ve hi bolenge nahi hum to khatra nahi molte to baki public jo hai jab aata hai to kabhi na kabhi sochne wali baat hai, kyon aa raha koi. Jab beta hi nahi aa raha hai, to door ke rishtedar kyon aata hai.

ONKAR NATH SRIVASTAVA VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BARABANKI - 2011 Supreme(All) 1071

(1) Kya Prarthi vividit makan ka malik hai tatha unke evam vipakshi ke madhya kiraeydari ka sambandh hai? (3) Kya prarthijan ki tulnatmak kathinai vipakshi se adhik hai? 3. Accordingly, a P.A. Case No. 3 of 2001 (B.N. Verma v. Onkar Nath Srivastava) registered before prescribed authority/ Civil Judge(Junior Division) Brabanki in order to decide the controversy in question has framed three issues were framed namely : (2) Kya prarthijan ki avashakta sadbhawana poorvak ha?

ABDUL MAJID MIR VS COL. KAPIL DEV GHAI - 2010 Supreme(All) 2005

5. Kya Vaadigarh madhyvarti labh prativadi sankhya-1 se paane ke adhikari hai, yadi ha to kis dar se? 6. Kya prativadi sankhya-2 prativadi sankhya-1 ke paksh mein nishpadit patta dinankit 4.5.2000 ka is vaad par kay prabhav hai?

In Re: Raj Singh Chauhan VS . - 2010 Supreme(All) 483

The precise words attributed to the contemnor to have been uttered in the court may be quoted below. "Abhi Jante Nahi Ho, Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Se Kahne Ke Agrah Na Man Ne Ka Kya Phal Hota Hai" Thereafter, the contemnor again came back to the court at 11.20 a.m and uttered the following words. "Maine Bade Bade, Jajon Ko Fit Kar Diya Hai Aap Kya Cheez Hai."

AI Thinking...

AI Overview...

Does Limitation Section 5 Apply to CPC Order 22?

Understanding Order XXII CPC: Death of Parties

Main Legal Position: Section 5's Applicability

Applicability to Rule 9 (Setting Aside Abatement)

Applicability to Rule 4 (Substitution of Legal Representatives)

Key Case Laws and Judicial Insights

Exceptions and Practical Limitations

Recommendations for Litigants and Advocates

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Related Judgments

Yeshwantrao Sabnis VS Bhalchandrarao

Champa Bai S/o Salikram VS Bholaram S/o Salikram - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 541

Rai Mathura Prasad VS Hanuman Prasad Bhagat - 1984 Supreme(Pat) 51

SADANANDA HOTTA Vs SATYABRATA SAHOO,IAS

Mahendra Singh VS Sohan Raj - 1973 Supreme(Raj) 51

KASINATH MUDULI VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2006 Supreme(Ori) 865

BANA @ MANAS NAIK @ MANAS NAIK vs STATE OF ODISHA

MAHADEVA SAHU @ MAHADEV SAHU vs STATE OF ODISHA

Shive Cooperative Housing Society VS Shri Chauthmal - 2001 Supreme(Raj) 1094

Nizamul Hai @ Titu VS U. P. Sunni Central WAQF - 2014 Supreme(All) 2012

State (Nct. of Delhi) VS Jitender Sharma - 2019 Supreme(Del) 546

PARVEEN BEGUM VS APPELLATE AUTHORITY - 2012 Supreme(Del) 1421

ONKAR NATH SRIVASTAVA VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BARABANKI - 2011 Supreme(All) 1071

ABDUL MAJID MIR VS COL. KAPIL DEV GHAI - 2010 Supreme(All) 2005

In Re: Raj Singh Chauhan VS . - 2010 Supreme(All) 483