Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)Banwari Lal (D) By Lrs vs Balbir Singh on 25 August, 2015
Banwari Lal v. Balbir Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6406
C.R. No.51 of 2016
10
for setting aside abatement and application for substitution thereby
dismissing the suit, therefore, abatement of suit is set aside under
Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC and application for substitution of
the plaintiff is allowed and the legal representatives of plaintiff be
brought on record within three weeks after appearance before the
trial Court or time as extended by the trial Court and thereafter, the
trial Court would do well to decide the suit expeditiously as the suit
was instituted on 26-02-2012. Parties are directed to appear
before the trial Court on 16-09-2016.
S.Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) By L.Rs. & ... vs Pramod Gupta (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 17 December, 2002
Amarjit Singh v. Pramod Gupta, 1991 SCC OnLine Del 131: (1991) 20 DRJ 337
C.R. No.51 of 2016
9
adjudication of the claims of others on merits. The
rejection by the High Court of the applications to set
aside abatement, condonation and bringing on record
the legal representatives does not appear, on the
peculiar nature of the case, to be a just or reasonable
exercise of the Court's power or in conformity with the
avowed object of the Court to do real, effective and
substantial justice."
Madan Lal vs Mst. Gopi & Anr on 29 August, 1980
11. In the instant case, the trial Court by its order dated 14-09-
2012 rejected the application under Order 22 Rule 3 and also Order
22 Rule 9 of CPC and dismissed the suit as abated. Since the trial
Court has declined to set aside the abatement and dismissed the
suit abated, I am of the considered opinion that the provisions
contained in Order 43 Rule 1 (k) of the CPC is attracted and the
appeal filed before the First Appellate Court against the rejection of
application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC was clearly
maintainable. The First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in
rejecting the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the CPC
3
. A.I.R. 1993 M.P. 145
C.R. No.51 of 2016
6
as the impugned order is contrary to provisions contained in Order
43 Rule 1(k) of the CPC as well as the decision rendered by their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Naik vs. Mst.
Hukumchand vs Biharilal (Deceased By Lrs.) And Ors. on 4 March, 1993
Hansubala Devi & others (supra) followed by decision of Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Hukumchand v. Biharilal (supra).
Therefore, the impugned order holding the appeal to be not
maintainable is set aside.
Gulam Nabi (Dead Thr Lrs) Mst. Hamila vs Mst. Firoja . on 4 September, 2015
"5. The Punjab and Gujarat High Courts have taken
a different view, but it is not necessary for me to deal
with those cases, as the Supreme Court in case of
Madan Naik (dead) by L.Rs. v. Mst.
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sital Prasad Saxena (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 August, 1984
In Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India 6, it was
observed that the rules of procedure under Order 22
CPC are designed to advance justice and should be so
interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for
punishing erring parties. On sufficient cause, delay in
bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party
on record should be condoned. Procedure is meant
only to facilitate the administration of justice and not to
defeat the same. The dismissal of the second appeal
by the High Court does not constitute a sound and
reasonable exercise of its power and the impugned
order7 cannot be sustained."
1