Punjab-Haryana High Court
Molu And Others vs Soran And Others on 20 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1993P&H81, AIR 1993 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 81, (1992) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 582, (1992) 2 RRR 518, (1992) RENTLR 279, 1992 PUNJ LJ 450, 1992 HRR 454, (1993) 1 LANDLR 70, 1993 REVLR 1 215, (1992) 2 RENCR 362, (1992) 2 PUN LR 520, 1993 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 360
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment disposes of Civil Revision No. 2952 of 1989 and 551 of 1991 since common question of law arises for determination therein.
2. The only question which arises for determination is whether an application to bring on record legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff will be governed by Art. 120 or Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Reference to relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in Civil Revision No. 2952 of 1989. Mam Chand, one of the plaintiffs, instituted a suit for possession of the disputed property on April 8, 1981. He died on February, 1988. His widow, two sons and two daughters moved an application for being impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased. The defendants contested the application on the ground that it was filed beyond time and that the suit had abated. The trial Judge, relying upon the decision of this Court reported as Har Devi v. Joginder Singh, 1988 PLJ 375, held that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff could move the application for impleading them as parties to the suit within three years of the date of death of the deceased. The defendants have challenged this order in this petition.
4. When this revision petitions came up for hearing, the learned Chief Justice doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered in Har Devi's case (supra) and by his order dated November 9, 1990 ordered that the case be put up before a Division Bench for decision. It is how the revision petitions have been placed before us for disposal.
5. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 963 (for short, the Act) reads thus :--
"Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run.
120. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to have the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party.
Ninety days The date of death of the plaintiff, appellant, defendant, or respondent, as the case may be."
A plain reading of Article 120 show that the time runs from the date of death of the plaintiff or appellant, as the case may be, and the period of limitation is ninety days from that date. The onus is on the applicant to prove the date of death of the deceased plaintiff or appellant as the case may be, and that the application has to be made within the period prescribed by this Article. In Har Devi's case (supra), our learned brother A. L. Bahri, J. took the view that Art. 120 of the Act is not attracted when the application is made by the legal representatives to get themselves impleaded as such. Such an application would be governed by the provisions of Art. 137, of the Act, which is residuary provision and provides for a period of three years from the date the right to apply accrues. The view taken by our learned brother A. L. Bahri, J. Stands overruled by the apex Court's decision in Mahant Niranjan Dass v. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1992 SC 492. In that case the apex Court held that the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff will be governed by Art. 120 of the Act. It will be useful to reproduce the observations of the apex Court (at page 492) :--
"Learned counsel for the applicant brought to our notice and placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Har Devi v. Joginder Singh, reported in 1988 Civil Court Cases 517 (P & H) and contended that the limitation in this case should be considered as three years as provided under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
We see no force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly provides a period of 90 days for having the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent to be made a party. In our view, the language of Art. 120 is clear and according to this the application in the present case ought to have been filed within 90 days of the death of sole appellant Niranjan Dass. The Punjab High Court in the above referred case took a wrong view that the provision of Art. 120 is inapplicable and that the period of Limitation would be three years and not 90 days. In the case before us Mahant Niranjan Dass was the sole appellant and he had died on 21-3-1988 and the applicant claiming himself to be a Chela of Mahant Niranjan Dass ought to have filed the application for bringing him on record within 90 days of the death of the appellant-Niranjan Dass. Even if for arguments sake the period is calculated from the date of knowledge of the applicant with regard to the present appeal pending in the Supreme Court, that date conies to 29-8-90, the date of the plaint filed by Gur Preet Dass. The application filed on 24-1-1991 is even beyond 90 days of the date of knowledge of the present litigation. The case of the applicant that he came to know about this appeal only in January, 1991 when he received a letter from the Advocate on record addressed to Mahant Niranjan Dass, is totally false. Learned Counsel for the applicant was thus unable to satisfy the delay in filing the application beyond 90 days."
6. In the light of this authoritative pronouncement, the view taken by our learned brother in Har Devi's case (supra) cannot be upheld. The judgment is accordingly reversed.
7. Resultantly, we hold that application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, whether filed by the legal representatives or by others, will be governed by the provisions of Art. 120 of the Act and not by the residuary Art. 137. The limitation to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or appellant will run from the date of death and the period of limitation is ninety days from that date.
8. For the reasons stated supra, we accept these revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the trial Court to decide the application for substituting the applicants as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff afresh in the light of the law laid down above. There will be no order as to costs.
9. Petition allowed.