Mohan Lal vs Karan Chand (Died) Repted. by his LRs.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J

What is the period of limitation during which the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff can move an application for being brought on record ? This is the sole question that arise in this revision petition. A few facts may be noticed.

Maiya Ram had instituted a suit for specific performance. He expired on April 4, 1991. When the case came up for hearing before the trial Court on July 19,1991, the counsel for the plaintiff brought the factum of death to the notice of the Court. The case was adjourned to enable him to file an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The application for this purpose was filed on August 16, 1991. The applicants, who were the sons of the deceased plaintiff, prayed that they be brought on record as legal representatives. This application was opposed by the defendant-petitioners on the ground of limitation. The learned trial Court relying on the two decisions of this Court in Har Devi v. Joginder Singh etc. (1988) 94 P.L.R. 183 and Sunil Kumar Jain v. Abdul Karim and ors. 1991 PLJ 691, held that the limitation for bringing on record the legal representatives was three years under Article 137; It consequently accepted the application and rejected the objection of the defendant-petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court,, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

Mr. Jaswant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others Vs. Monarch Investments and others, to contend that the case is governed by the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act and not those of Article 137. He has further pointed out that even a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that there is no equity in favour of the petitioners and the revision petition should, therefore, be dismissed.

The learned trial Court has allowed the application of the respondents primarily in view of the decision of this Court in Har Devi''s case (supra). This judgment has been expressly overruled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. The matter is governed by Article 120. Accordingly, the order is set aside.

It, however, appears that an application for setting aside the abatement can be filed within 60 days from the date of abatement. In Lal Singh v. Krishan Gopal 1980 CLJ 383 G.C. Mittal, J., has inter alia observed that the provisions of Articles 120 and 121 have to be harmoniously construed. In view of this, it would be open to the respondents to make a suitable prayer before the trial Court. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.