High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 05 SHI CK 0088

Smt. Jaini Begum and Others vs Social Finance Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. and Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 19 May 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dev Darshan Sood, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 457 words

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The petitioners challenges the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, allowing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 (1) of the CPC filed by the plaintiff for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Yusuf Ali (defendant No. 1) in the suit.

2.

The application is terse. It is reproduced for reference as under:

Application under Order 22 Rule 4(a) CPC read with Section 151 CPC for bringing the Lars. of deceased Yusuf Ali defendant No. 1 on record.

Respectfully sheweth:

1.

That the above titled civil suit is pending before this ld. Court and is fixed for today.

2.

That we have recently come to know that the defendant No. 1 Yusuf Ali has expired leaving behind the following legal heirs:

1.

Smt. Jani Begum Wife

2.

Sh. Guljar Son

3.

Smt. Bano Daughter

4.

Sh. Nasim Son

3.

That to the best of the knowledge of the applicant there is no other legal heirs of late Sh. Yusuf Ali. An affidavit is attached.

It is therefore prayed that the above said legal heirs of Sh. Yusuf Ali may kindly be ordered to be brought on record in place of defendant No. 1.

Sd/- Applicant/Plaintiff Through Counsel

Dated 07/05/209

Sd/- O.P. Chauhan Advocate Paonta Sahib (HP)

Reading of the application does not in any manner show that how and in what manner the plaintiff gained knowledge about the death of defendant No. 1. The learned Trial Court in its order has noted certain dates which have not been established by any pleadings or affidavit. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was the duty of the learned Counsel for the defendant under Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC to inform the Court about the death of the defendant. The law is well established on this point. This point does not seem to have been considered by the Court below. This Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The learned court below shall determined the issue afresh as to the question of limitation and applicability of provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC which casts a duty on the party/counsel to inform the Court about the death of litigant, which have been complied with or not. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court on 28th May, 2010. A direction is issued that the application be disposed of expeditiously and not later than three months from the date of first appearance by the parties. The record of this petition is directed to be sent back immediately. Needless to say that the court shall dispose of the application keeping in view the settled position of law. Dasti copy on usual terms.