Skip to main content

Justice cannot be denied merely because of wrong mention of provision in the application

In Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased), the Appellant filed a suit on 24.06.2008 seeking to set aside a sale deed executed in March 1995 in respect of a parcel of land which was purchased by Defendant No. 7. As on the date of filing of the suit, Defendant No. 7 was already dead. Upon the report of the process server to this effect, the trial Court on 31.03.2009 ordered that the suit had abated as against Defendant No. 7. Initially, the Appellant filed an application Under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No. 7 which the trial Court rejected.

Thereafter the Appellant chose to file an application for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No. 7 on record, Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. The aforementioned application also came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 03.09.2011, and confirmed by the High Court by passing the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

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. 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 22 Rule 4 of the CPC. 

In the matter on hand, the sale was made in favour of Defendant No. 7, and the validity of the sale deed was the subject matter of the suit. The purchaser of the property, i.e. Defendant No. 7, though dead at the time of filing the suit, was made one of the Defendants erroneously. The persons who are now sought to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC are the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 7. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that, the presence of the legal representatives of the deceased is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the suit. Their presence is necessary in the suit for the determination of the real matter in dispute. Therefore, they are needed to be brought on record, subject to the law of limitation, as contended under Section 21 of the Limitation Act. 

Merely because the earlier application filed by the Appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC was dismissed on 09th September, 2009 as not maintainable, it will not prohibit the Plaintiff from filing another application, which is maintainable in law. There was no adjudication of the application to bring legal representatives on record on merits by virtue of the order dated 9th September, 2009. On the other hand, the earlier application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC was dismissed by the trial Court as not maintainable, as Defendant No. 7 had died prior to the filing of the suit and that Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC comes into the picture only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit. The only course open to the Appellant in law was to file an application for impleadment to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC, dated 09th September, 2009, will not act as res-judicata. 

The Supreme Court opined that Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, empowers the Court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. If the Court is satisfied that, the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and also that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done. When the Court finds that, in the absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely settled, the Court would do justice by impleading such persons. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC gives wide discretion to the Court to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more