Sondhi Ram vs Uggar Singh and Others

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—The aforementioned two civil revision petitions filed by petitioner Sondhi Ram are directed against order dated 16.2.2012 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur. As the matter in issue involved in both the petitions is the same, therefore, the same are being taken up together for adjudication. However, for convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from CR No. 2858 of 2012.

Order dated 16.2.2012 vide which amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., was allowed by the lower court while permitting the legal representatives of plaintiff Satnam Singh to be impleaded after his death, giving them opportunity to amend the pleadings so as to incorporate the pleas which were available to them as legal heirs of Satnam Singh as also in their own right as well, is under challenge. Notwithstanding the objection raised by the defendants that said impleaded LRs could not have been allowed to take any plea other than which had been taken by deceased Satnam Singh in whose footsteps the LRs had stepped in, application of the LRs for amendment of the plaint was allowed.

By way of this revision petition, plea of respondent-defendants is that LRs could not be allowed to take a plea which was independently and separately available to them in their own right as they could only espouse the cause set up by their father Satnam Singh and could not change the nature of the suit.

In the connected civil revision petition, in a suit filed by Sondhi Ram where Satnam Singh was impleaded as a defendant and after his death, his LRs were brought on record, written statement filed by Satnam Singh was allowed to be amended by his LRs impleaded in substitution of him wherein pleas other than taken by their father Satnam Singh and those which were available to them within their own right, were also allowed to be introduced.

Plea of the opponents of Satnam Singh (now deceased), is that unless the LRs are impleaded as separate parties in their own right and are not there in the suit only as LRs of Satnam Singh, they could not have been allowed to amend their pleadings to incorporate pleas available to them in their own right and even other than those which were available only to Satnam Singh deceased. Contention of counsel for the applicants LRs however is that all pleas are to be allowed to the LRs with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.

Counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions impugning the orders has made reliance on Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan and others, urging that if LRs intend to make any individual defence de-hors the defence available to the deceased, he must get himself impleaded in his personal or independent capacity or retain the right to file independent suit asserting his own right.

Counsel for the respondents defending the impugned orders, has placed reliance on Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Shri Sri Kishan, 1912 A.I.R. (S.C.) 2526. Observations made by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in para 10 of this authority are reproduced as below:

"10. Under sub-clause (ii) of Rule 4 of Order 22 Civil Procedure Code any person so made a party as a legal representative of the deceased respondent was entitled to make any defence appropriate his character as legal representative of the deceased respondent. In other words, the heirs and the legal representatives could urge all contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased. Indeed this does not prevent the legal representatives from setting up also their own independent title, in which case there could be no objection to the court impleading them not merely as the legal representatives of the deceased but also in their personal capacity avoiding thereby a separate suit for a decision on the independent title."

In yet another authority Joginder Singh and Others Vs. Narinder Kaur and Others, of this Court wherein amendment sought in the pleadings by the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant was declined by the lower court but was reversed by this Court by making following observations in para Nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment:

"4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court declining the amendment is not sustainable in law. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court that the defendants cannot be permitted to challenge the stand taken by their predecessor Baljit Singh, is not sustainable as the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant have same right as were possessed by the deceased-defendant. Had the defendant been alive, he would have the same right to seek the amendment in the written statement. Therefore, the said right cannot be declined to the legal representatives.

The challenge in the suit is to the mutation on the basis of Will and the consent decree suffered by Balwant Singh in favour of his son Baljit Singh. Therefore, it is open to the defendants to seek amendment alleging that Baljit Singh has got the estate from Balwant Singh on the basis of Will dated 21.11.1980, therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court, declining the amendment, is not sustainable in law."

If we examine the pleas taken by the LRs in addition to what has already been pleaded by their father Satnam Singh, it becomes evident that additional plea taken by them is not de-hors plea of their father Satnam Singh and rather, in a sense is extension of the same plea. Plea of joint Hindu family property introduced by the LRs in addition to challenge the alienation made by their father Satnam Singh, does not run contrary to the pleas already set up by said Satnam Singh.

So far as plea of the revisionist-petitioners that the applications for amendment of the pleadings were allowed at a belated stage, is concerned, it is worth notice that only event of death of Satnam Singh forms the genesis of bringing his LRs on record, who after their impleadment had made applications for amendment of their pleadings and thus, such change could not have been contemplated before hand. The stage at which death of Satnam Singh took place resulting in this development, thus, becomes inconsequential.

Looking from another angle, the amendment introduced by the impugned orders in the pleadings of Satnam Singh plaintiff in one suit and defendant in other one does not bring any surprise to the opponents and no plea changing the nature of the suit or of the defence has been allowed by the impugned orders. In short, stand taken by Satnam Singh continues to be pursued by the LRs with additional plea of the property having been taken by them as joint Hindu family co-parcenary property. This additional plea is not at divergence with stand taken by Satnam Singh and rather is in conformity with the same.

Reference may be made to Sumtibai and Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) Thru Smt. Mankanwar Chordia (Dead) and Others, where Hon''ble Apex Court even by going a step further has held that on death of a defendant, if legal representatives are impleaded, they are entitled to file even their separate written statement additionally to the written statement already there on record which had been filed by deceased-predecessor-in-interest of theirs. In para No. 8 of this judgment, Hon''ble Apex Court had held as under:

"8. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. In our opinion, Order 22 Rule 4(2) C.P.C., cannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondent."

It was further held in para No. 15 of this judgment as under:

"15. Also, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement. In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. In our opinion, this will clearly violate natural justice."

What is true of legal representatives brought on death of a defendant is equally true of a legal representative brought on record after death of a plaintiff. He cannot be foreclosed to introduce any other plea which becomes available to him on his impleadment as legal heir of the deceased and he wants to put forth such plea in the existing plaint or replication whatsoever.

Sequelly, affirming the impugned orders passed by the lower court, both the revision petitions, being of no merit, are dismissed. However, as the suit have become old, adjudication in both the suits be made by the lower court within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, even by conducting day to day proceedings, if so required.