9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal abatement due to death of defendant, application for setting aside abatement, devolution of interest, interpretation of Order 22, rule 10.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a decree by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where the plaintiff sought recovery of possession of a Dera and its properties. The defendant contended that he was lawfully appointed as the mahant of an independent Dera at Landeke. The trial court decreed the suit, but the decree was reversed on appeal. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the defendant passed away, leading to the question of abatement. The appellant failed to bring on record the legal representatives within the prescribed period, later claiming lack of knowledge about the defendant's death. The High Court held that the appeal had abated, rejecting the appellant's plea. Additionally, the appellant argued that even without impleading the legal representatives, the appeal should not abate as he claimed to represent the Dera as its duly elected Chela. The High Court disagreed, stating that the legal representatives should have been brought on record within the specified time. The Supreme Court analyzed the situation and disagreed with the High Court's view. They emphasized that the interest in the subject matter of the suit devolved upon the defendant's Chela after his death, allowing the appeal to continue against the new party under Order 22, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court clarified that this rule applies not only in cases of death but also in instances of devolution of interest for any reason. They highlighted that the devolution of interest occurred when the Chela was elected as the new mahant after the defendant's demise. The Court cited precedents to support their interpretation of Order 22, rule 10 in cases of trusteeship succession during the pendency of a suit. In conclusion, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decree, directing the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits. The appeal was allowed without any order on costs. This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the legal judgment, addressing each issue involved and highlighting the key arguments and interpretations made by the Supreme Court.
|
