Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepka Industries And Anr. vs Sukha Nand And Ors. on 27 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR475
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The contioversy here is with regard to the limitation for the filing of an application by a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be impleaded as such
2. The plaintiff Inder Sain Jain died in April or May, 1989. It was on November 8, 1989 i.e. after more than 90 days of his death that his son Sukha Nand Jain applied for being impleaded as his legal representative. The bar of limitation was sought to be raised against this prayer on behalf of the defendants. It was in this context that the question arose whether the limitation for the filing of such an application was 90 days in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act or three years as per Article 137 of the Act. The trial Court following the judgment of this Court is Smt. Har Devi v. Joginder Singh, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 183, held that the limitation was three years as prescribed under Article 337 of the Limitation Act and the application for bringing the applicant Sukha Nand Jain as legal representative for his deceased father was thus in time. It was accordingly allowed.
3. A reference to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Har Devi's case (supra) would show that it is in turn based upon, the view ex pressed in the earlier judgment of this Court in Janak Singh v. Vasanda Ram, 1985 H. R. R. 82, where it was held that Article 120 was not applicable to an application by a legal representative to be impleaded as such. It being observed :--
"The language employed in this Article leads to an irresistible conclusion that a period of 90 days is provided for filing of an application to have the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or an appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party. This Article is not attracted when the application is made by the legal representative to get himself impleaded as a legal representative. The use of words 'to have' is full of meaning. . It connotes that one person wants to have another person to be impleaded as a party When a legal representative of a defendant files an application that he should be impleaded as a party, the application is not to have him impleaded; rather it is to get him impleaded".
A similar view was also taken In Paramjit v. Tara Chand, 1986 H. R. R. 66.
4. The view of this Court as expressed in the judicial precedents referred to earlier, no longer holds good on account of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahant Niranjan Dass v. S. G. P. Committee, Amritsar, (1992-2) 102 P. L. R. 497 (S.C.), where it was specifically held that the High Court took a wrong view in Smt Har Devi's case. The matter there concerned an application filed by a Chela to be impleaded as the legal representative of the Mahant, who was the appellant, it was held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applied and therefore, the application ought to have been filed within 90 days of the date of the death of the sole appellant.
5. It follows, therefore, that it is now settled law that an application by a legal representative to be impleaded as such would be governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and therefore, in terms thereof, it has to be filed within 90 days of the death of she deceased plaintiff or defendants, as the case may be, seen in this light, it is apparent that the present application by Sukha Nand Jain to be impleaded as the legal representative of his deceased father was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and it has, therefore, to be dismissed, as being barred by time.
6. The impugned order of the trial Court is consequently hereby set aside and this Revision Petition is accepted. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs