9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of the suit. 2. Setting aside of the abatement. 3. Limitation period for substitution of legal representatives. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Abatement of the Suit: The appellant corporation instituted a suit on April 29, 1952, against the father of the respondents to recover a sum of money due on a mortgage. The defendant contested the suit, and a preliminary decree was passed ex parte on February 5, 1955, followed by a final decree on June 23, 1955. The first application for execution of the decree was dismissed for default on October 4, 1955, due to the death of the defendant on July 20, 1954. The suit abated as the appellant did not bring the legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of 90 days as required by Article 176 of the Limitation Act. 2. Setting Aside of the Abatement: The appellant filed an application for substitution and setting aside the abatement, which was opposed by the respondents. The Subordinate Judge held that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from continuing the suit and set aside the abatement. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the appellant failed to show good cause for the delay in applying for the setting aside of the abatement and for substitution beyond the period allowed by law. The application presented on March 27, 1957, was considered very belated. 3. Limitation Period for Substitution of Legal Representatives: The appellant had to satisfy the Court that it had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period for setting aside the abatement and for substitution. The findings of the trial court were in favor of the appellant, indicating that the delay was not due to laches on its part. The High Court's role in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was questioned, as it is well-settled that this applies to questions of jurisdiction and not to conclusions of law or fact. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Revisional Jurisdiction: The High Court's interference was based on the contention that a decision on a question of limitation involves jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, not to conclusions of fact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether there was sufficient cause for the delay and to extend the period of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including Joy Chand Lal Babu v. Kamalaksha Chaudhury, to illustrate that erroneous decisions on jurisdictional questions could justify revisional interference. However, in the present case, the Subordinate Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the questions of fact regarding sufficient cause for delay and to proceed with the suit based on its findings. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in interfering with the Subordinate Judge's finding of fact regarding the appellant's sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the order of the Trial Court was restored. The Trial Court was directed to proceed according to law with the further execution of the decree on the second application presented by the appellant. The appeal was allowed with costs throughout.
|
