Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. The contesting Respondents received letter dated 17th February , 2025 sent by the Advocate for the Appellants in First Appeal No. 2477 of 2011 wherein he asked about the present status of all the Respondents. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit 'K' is the copy of the said letter dated 17th February, 2025 sent by the Advocate for the Appellants. It is only upon receipt of the said letter that it was investigated about the present status of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 11, when it realized that either they have expired and/or prior to their demise, they have released/transferred / conveyed their rights in the suit property and presently all rights in the suit property has ppn 13 2.Ia-9018.25(j).doc devolved upon the Applicants herein by diverse registered documents. The said letter was replied by letter dated 27th February 2025 pointing out the aforesaid facts. The Applicants crave leave to refer to and rely upon the said letter when produced.
8. We have further noticed that in Baijnath Ram v. Tunkowati Kuer [Baijnath Ram v.Tunkowati Kuer, 1962 SCC OnLine Pat 5 : AIR 1962 Pat 285] the Full Bench of the Patna High Court has held : (SCC OnLine Pat para 15) "15....Another thing to notice in connection with this rule is that a party on whom the interest of the deceased plaintiff or defendant devolves is not entitled to continue the suit or appeal as a matter of right, it is essential to obtain the leave of the Court. The granting of leave is within the discretion of the Court. The Court, however, is to exercise its discretion judicially and according to well-established principles. Further, unlike Rules 3 and 4, no limitation is prescribed for presentation of an application under this rule and no penalty is laid down for failure to substitute the person on whom the interest of the deceased plaintiff or defendant was devolved. Therefore, the right to make an application under this rule is a right which accrues from day to day and can be made at any time during the pendency of a suit. There is no abatement under this rule."
Rule 7 deals with the case of creation of an interest in a husband on marriage and Rule 8 deals with the case of assignment on the insolvency of a plaintiff. Rule 10 provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit other than those referred to in the foregoing Rules and is based on the principle that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject-matter of the suit has devolved upon another during its pendency but such a suit may be continued with the leave of the court by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such step is taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree, as the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that the original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not vigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary resulting in decision adverse to the party upon whom the interest had devolved. The legislature while enacting Rules 3, 4 and 10 has made a clear-cut distinction. In cases covered by Rules

3 and 4, if right to sue survives and no application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased party is filed within the time prescribed, there is automatic abatement of the suit and procedure has been prescribed for setting aside abatement under Rule 9 on the grounds postulated therein. In cases covered by Rule 10, the legislature has not prescribed any such procedure in the eveni of failure to apply for leave of the court to continue the proceeding by oi against the person upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of a suit which shows that the legislature was conscious of this eventuality and yet has not prescribed that failure would entail dismissal of the suit as it was intended that the proceeding would continue by or against the original party although he ceased to have any interest in the subject of dispute in the event of failure to apply for leave to continue by or against the person upon whom the interest has devolved for bringing him on 7 (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 534 ppn 21 2.Ia-9018.25(j).doc the record."