Joginder Singh vs Chander Kanta through LR and others

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 and consequently the suit against defendant No. 1 brought for specific performance of agreement dated 13.9.1995 was dismissed.

It may be noticed that the petitioner has filed a suit against Ms. Chander Kanta for specific performance of agreement dated 13.9.1995. As Ms. Chander Kanta has failed to execute the conveyance deed in pursuance of the agreement of sale, the suit was filed. However, no notice having been issued to Ms. Chander Kanta it was reported by the Process Server that she had died about 9 months back. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar came to the conclusion that as no suit was competent against a dead person and therefore, it was not open to the petitioner to move an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed is contrary to the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Karuppaswamy and others v. C. Ramamurthy, 1993(3) RRR 122 : AIR 1993 SC 2324. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the suit was filed by the petitioner he was not in know of the fact that Ms. Chander Kanta was dead, therefore, it was open to him to move an application immediately, which was done. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy''s case (supra) was pleased to hold as under :

"9. Thus in our opinion the course set out in Munshi''s case (AIR 1983 SC 271) (supra) is attracted to the instant case since the High Court has found that the plaintiffrespondent had acted in good faith and had committed mistake in that frame of mind. Munshi''s case, in our view, should clear the way in favour of the plaintiffrespondent, ending in dismissal of this appeal.

On the above analysis, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court was correct for the reasoning it advanced as well as for the effort we have made in refurbishing that view in the processual rehearing. As a result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs."

Therefore, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon''ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 are permitted to be brought on record and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter after impleading the legal representatives.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 13.11.2006.