Bhupinder Singh and Others vs Jagrup Singh and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—By this order, I propose to dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 4876 and 4877 of 1997, as common question of law based on similar facts arises in these petitions.

On 25th September, 1997, learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Fatehabad passed two orders; one in Suit No. 319 of 4.2.1994 titled Jagrup Singh and Ors. v. Satnam Singh and Ors., and other is Suit No. 320 of 4.2.1994 titled Jagrup Singh and Ors. v. Richpal Singh and Ors.

Vide these orders the learned Civil Judge allowed the applications of the applicants moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of the legal representatives of defendants No. 1 and 5 respectively in the respective suits.

These applications were preferred by the plaintiff-applicants on the ground that they were not knowing the fact at the time of filing of the suit that defendants No. 1 and 5 in the respective suits namely Satnam Singh and Bakshish Singh had already died. They had come to know of this fact now and therefore, they wanted to implead the legal representatives of these two persons (since deceased).

The applications were contested by the present petitioners, but the same were allowed by the learned trial Court, as already noticed, giving rise to the present revision petitions, referred to above.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the cases of Joginder Singh and Ors. v. Krishan Lal and Ors. (1977)79 P.L.R. 374 and Sumer Singh and Ors. v. Kashi Ram and Ors. 1993 P.L.J. 467, to contend that the present applications ought not to have been allowed, while learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the cases Saraswati and Ors. v. Hazari Lal and Ors. (1989) 96 P.L.R. 670 and Karuppaswamy and Others Vs. C. Ramamurthy, to argue that the applications have rightly been allowed and there was no other alternative before the Court but to allow these applications, as in view of the amendment made in the C.P.C. no suit abates and as such amendment/impleadment ought to be allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or otherwise apparent on the face of the record and as such do not call for interference. It is true that suit against a dead person is a nullity and no suit could be instituted, but in the present case other parties, who have common interest alongwith these defendants had been impleaded as parties as such the character of the suit is no way effected and the suit cannot be termed as nullity. At best even if the applications were dismissed it could not result in dismissal of the suit by itself. On the other hand, it would be a question to be gone into whether the suit would be bad for non-joinder of necessary or proper parties. By allowing the application, all that has been done by the learned trial Court is that, it had ordered the impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased defendants in each suit. In any case, the applications and even the suits itself were filed after the amendment in the C.P.C. by which the concept of abatement of a suit or legal proceedings, has lost its effective meaning and does not substantially takes away or gives right to either of the parties to the proceedings (Rule 2-A and 2-B added after Rule 2 of Order 22 of the C.P.C. by the Punjab and Haryana High Court).

The only reasonable contention that could be argued on behalf of the petitioners was that if the claim has got barred by time, which would obviously depend on evidence to be led by the parties, then that plea of limitation should not, be adversely effected by the impleadment of the proposed defendants. I do see reason in this submission of the learned counsel, but it only needs to be clarified that plea of limitation would obviously be kept open limited to the proposed defendants i.e., legal representative of Satnam Singh and Bakhshish Singh in the respective suits.

Consequently, I find no merit in these revisions and the same are dismissed with the above clarification.