Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.78 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 171 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 176 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961
It is not necessary to consider whether the High Court
applied its earlier Full Bench decision correctly or not
when we are to decide the main question urged in this appeal
and that being the first contention Rules 3 and 4 of O.
XXII, C.P.C. lay down respectively the procedure to be
followed in case of death of one of several plaintiffs when
the right to sue does not survive to the surviving
plaintiffs alone or that of the sole plaintiff when the
right to sue survives or of the death of one of several
defendants or of sole defendant in similar circumstances.
The procedure requires an application for the making of the
legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant
a party to the suit. It does not say who is to present the
application. Ordinarily it would be the plaintiff, as by
the abatement of the suit the defendant stands to gain.
However, an application is necessary to be made for the
purpose. If no such application is made within the time
allowed by law, the suit abates to far as the deceased
476
Plaintiff is concerned or as against the deceased defendant.
The effect of such an abatement on the suit of the surviving
plaintiffs or the suit against the surviving defendants
depends on other considerations as held by this Court in
State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram (1) and Jhanda Singh v. Gurmukh
Singh (2) . Any way, that question does not arise in this
case as the sole respondent had died.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan And Ors. vs Om Press Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 24 December, 1959
The High Court relied on the Full Bench case of its
Court reported in Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan v. Om Press Co.
Ltd., (1), which held that ignorance of the death of the
defendant was not a sufficient cause for setting aside the
abatement when an application to bring the legal
representatives of' the deceased on the record was made
after the expiry of the period of limitation, as the law
imposed an obligation on the person applying for bringing
the legal representatives of the deceased on the record and
he had, therefore, to show absence of want of care. The
(1) (1960) 1 1. L. R. Punj 935
473
High Court held that the Union of India did not state either
in its application dated March 17, 1958, or in the other
application dated May 14, 1958, that the Government had not
been careless in the matter and had been vigilant in keeping
itself informed regarding the whereabouts of Ram Charan and
that it would not have been difficult for the Government to
have come to know of Ram Charan's death, who lived in Ambala
Cantonment, to which place the appeal related.
1