AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 307 wordsWe do not think that, when the legal representatives for a deceased defendant or respondent are on record, an application to bring on the legal
representatives within three months is necessary. It is enough if the plaintiff or appellant at some time or other before the hearing of the suit or
appeal states the fact and gets it noted on the record. The decision in Shankar Bat v. Motilal ILR (1924) B 118 on this matter is not necessary for
the case. Anyhow we do not agree with it. The decision in Gurditta Mal v. Muhammad Khan (1925) 7 Lah. LJ 544 has been dissented from by
the Lahore High Court itself in Gopal Das v. Mul Chand ILR (1926) Lah 399. See also Maung Po v. Ma Shwe Ma ILR (1924) R 445 and the
decision of Jackson, J., in C. R. P. No. 527 of 1927 with which we agree.
The result is there was no abatement of the suit even as regards 1st defendant. When the District Munsif stated in his order, dated 8th August,
1925, that the abatement as regards the 1st defendant will stand but the suit will proceed against the rest, it was an ambiguous order. One is apt to
construe it as an order that there is no abatement against defendants 2 to 25 which is the necessary legal result if they are the legal representatives
of the 1st defendant and if the suit abated against 1st defendant. The District Munsif made this clear when he passed the order of the 23rd October
and this has been appealed against. There is then no substance in the argument that the order of the 8th August ought to have been appealed
against and has become final.
We think the Subordinate Judge is right and dismiss the appeal with costs.