Mohammed Shukur vs Smt. Jayamma and Others

S. Venkataraman, J

These revision petitions are filed by the tenant questioning the order of the Munsiff allowing an application filed by the respondents u/s 151 CPC to amend the cause title in the order by bringing the respondents as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner in H.R.C.19/85. That order of the Munsiff which was challenged by the petitioner before the District Judge has been confirmed by him.

The undisputed facts giving rise to the application u/s 151 filed by the respondents are briefly as hereunder. The deceased Ramesh Kuberappa Pastay had filed a petition in H.R.C.19/ 85 seeking eviction of the petitioner on various grounds. The evidence of both parties was completed by December 1988 and the matter was at the stage of arguments. The original petitioner died on 27,5.89. The respondents filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to bring them on record on 9.6.89 after serving a copy on the petitioner''s advocate. That application was filed within time. No specific order allowing that application was passed by the Court. The petitioner did not file any objection to that application. Subsequently the respondents'' advocate filed an application for permission to produce certain documents under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. That application was allowed by the Court. The arguments were heard on 22.12.90 and an order was also passed on 4.1,91.

The respondents sought for formal order allowing the legal representatives application and to bring them on record. This application was filed under Sections 151 and 152 CPC. The petitioner opposed that application contending that as the legal representatives were not brought on record in the original petition the petition automatically abated and that the Court could not after the disposal of the case allow that legal representative application. It was also contended that even if the L.R. application was to be allowed the final order already passed will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be again heard afresh. The Munsiff has allowed the application filed by the respondents holding that the failure to pass a formal order allowing the L.R. application was accidental and that the mistake could be rectified by bringing the LRs. on record without the need of hearing the matter again. The Learned District Judge has concurred with the order of the Munsiff.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner again contended that as no order allowing the L.R. application was passed the proceedings must be deemed to have abated, that u/s 151 the Court could not have passed an order allowing the L.R. application which had been filed in the main petition and that at any rate if the L.R. application was allowed the Court ought to have commenced the proceedings from the stage at which they were pending when the application was filed.

This is a case where the respondents have filed the requisite application- to be brought on record as the L.R.s of the deceased landlord in time and a copy of the application had also been served on the revision petition. The petitioner did not file any* objections to that application though the case was pending for more than a year. That apart subsequently the advocate for the respondents filed an application to produce certain documents and that application was also allowed without any objection on behalf of the petitioner. The Court has proceeded to hear the arguments and pass the considered order. These facts would indicate that the parties have proceeded on the basis that the L.R. application had been allowed and they have proceeded with the case. It is only by an accidental mistake the Court has failed to pass the requisite order allowing the L.R. application and bringing the L.Rs. on record. The question of the proceedings abating does not arise as the necessary application had been filed within time. In a case of this type where the L.R. application has been filed in time and no objection has been filed by the other party and where parties as well as the Court proceeded on the basis that the L.Rs. have come on record, it would be travesty of justice to hold that the order passed in the case would be vitiated only on account of the absence of a formal order bringing the L.Rs. on record. u/s 151 CPC the Court has inherent power to set right its own mistake and avoid miscarriage of justice. When a L.R. application is filed it is the duty of the Court to pass orders thereon as nothing remains to be done by the parties especially when that application is not even opposed. In the circumstances the exercise of the discretion by the Trial Court in correcting the mistake committed by it in not passing a format order allowing the L.R. application does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its power u/s 115 of CPC. The District Judge has in fact referred to the decision of the High Court of Punjab in The Land Acquisition Collector, Irrigation Branch, Ludhiana Vs. Wazir Singh Kartar Singh, and RAJESHWARI SINGH AND ANR. v. LAKHRAJO KUNWAR AIR 1984 Pat. 364 wherein it has been held that if by inadvertance or carelessness a formal order substituting the names of the heirs in the place of the deceased party is not made the Court can in exercise of its powers under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to correct the mistake.

For the above reasons these revision petitions are dismissed.