9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of appeal under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Representative nature of the suit filed under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. 3. Applicability of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the present case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Abatement of Appeal under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The primary issue raised was whether the appeal had abated due to the death of Mst. Parwati Devi, the sole respondent, and the failure to substitute her legal representatives within the prescribed time. The court noted that the appeal was filed by the State against the decree passed in favor of Parwati Devi. The State contended that the appeal should not abate as the suit was of a representative nature and requested the substitution of legal representatives. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram, which dealt with joint decrees and the necessity of impleading all joint decree-holders in an appeal. However, the court distinguished the present case, stating that the decree in question was not a joint decree and the suit was filed solely by Parwati Devi. 2. Representative Nature of the Suit Filed under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855: The court analyzed Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which allows a suit for damages to be brought by the executor, administrator, or representative of the deceased for the benefit of the family members. The court emphasized that such suits are inherently representative, meant for the benefit of the family members specified in the Act. The court concluded that Parwati Devi's suit was representative in nature, brought for the benefit of herself, her children, and her in-laws, thereby negating the applicability of Order 22 regarding abatement. 3. Applicability of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Present Case: The court drew an analogy with cases brought under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows suits in a representative capacity with the court's permission. The court cited several precedents where the death of a representative party did not result in the abatement of the suit or appeal, provided the remaining representatives continued the litigation. The court held that the principle applicable to Order 1, Rule 8 suits should also apply to suits brought under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, as both are representative in nature. Conclusion: The court concluded that the objection regarding abatement was without merit. It ordered that the legal representatives of Parwati Devi, namely her children and in-laws, be substituted in her place to continue the appeal. The court emphasized that no question of abatement arises in representative suits like the present one, and the appeal should proceed with the substituted respondents. The case was set down for hearing on the merits after due service on the newly substituted respondents.
|
