Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.30 seconds)The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961
Further, the principle behind the provisions of
Rule 4 seems to be that any one of the plaintiffs
or defendants, in filing such an appeal,
represents all the other non-appealing plaintiffs
or defendants as he wants the reversal or
modification of the decree in favor of them as
well, in view of the fact that the original decree
proceeded on a ground common to all of them.
Kedar Nath was alive when the appeal was filed
and was actually one of the appellants. The
surviving appellants cannot be said to have filed
the appeal as representing Kedar Nath.
Kedar Nath’s appeal has abated and the decree
in favor of the respondents has become final
against his legal representatives. His legal
representatives cannot eject the defendants from
the premises in suit. It will be against the scheme
of the Code to hold that Rule 4 of Order 41
empowered the Court to pass a decree in favor of
the legal representatives of the deceased on
hearing an appeal by the surviving appellants
even though the decree against him has become
final. This court said in State of Punjab versus
Nathu Ram:
The Limitation Act, 1963
Delhi Development Authority vs Diwan Chand Anand . on 11 July, 2022
(a) Delhi Development Authority vs. Diwan Chand
Anand and Others28: In this case two out of six
persons, in whose favour the deeds of conveyance were
executed, instituted a suit against the state-respondents
including DDA by impleading the remaining co-owners
as defendants. The suit was decreed by trial court
against which DDA filed appeal impleading plaintiffs as
well as other defendants, who were alleged co-owners,
as respondents. One of the plaintiff-respondent and
some of the defendant-respondent who were co-owners
died during the pendency of the appeal. On ground of
non-substitution of all the heirs of deceased plaintiff-
Gurnam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors vs Gurbachan Kaur (D) By Lrs on 27 April, 2017
(c) Gurnam Singh (Dead) through LRs and Others vs.
Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by LRs.31 : In this case, it was
held by this Court that where parties to an appeal had
expired and the legal representatives of the deceased
parties were not brought on record the proceedings
would abate and the decree passed in ignorance thereof
would be a nullity. In our view, this judgment is of no
help to the appellant.
Baij Nath And Anr. vs Ram Bharose And Ors. on 10 April, 1953
(e) Baij Nath & Another vs. Ram Bharose and
Others33: In this case a Full Bench of the Allahabad
High Court held:
Ratan Lal Shah vs Firm Lalmandas Chhadammalal & Anr on 15 April, 1969
In Ratan Lal Shah case this court
allowed the appeal to be prosecuted, even though
one of the joint decree-holders impleaded as a party
respondent had not been served with the notice of
appeal. In the present case one of the respondents
had died and his heirs have not been brought on
the record.
State Of Punjab And Another vs Shamlal Murari & Anr on 6 October, 1975
(d) State of Punjab vs. Shamlal Murari32: This
decision does not deal with the issue of abatement. We,
therefore, find it not relevant for discussion.
Pandit Sri Chand And Ors vs M/S. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand on 4 February, 1966
29. The decision of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad
(supra) was followed in Pandit Sri Chand (supra) and the
same principle of law has been adopted in a recent two-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Goli Vijayalakshmi and
Others vs. Yenduj Sathiraju (Dead) through LRs and
Others25 where this Court declined to accept the argument
that despite non-substitution of LRs of a deceased appellant,
the other appellants could prosecute the appeal with the aid
of Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC. The relevant portion of the
judgment is extracted below: