9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Abatement of appeal due to failure to bring heirs of deceased party on record within the prescribed time. 2. Interpretation of Order 41 Rule 4 CPC regarding joint decrees. 3. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases. 4. Abatement of appeal in case of joint decree holders. 5. Competence of appellate court to vary or modify decrees. 6. Abatement of appeal due to failure to formally show an heir as a legal representative. Analysis: The judgment involves a case where the appeal was dismissed by the High Court due to the failure to bring the heirs of a deceased party on record within the prescribed time, resulting in the abatement of the appeal. The High Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order 41 Rule 4 CPC, which allows the appellate court to reverse or vary a decree in favor of all plaintiffs or defendants if the decree proceeds on a ground common to all parties. However, the High Court's interpretation was challenged, stating that the power under Order 41 Rule 4 can be exercised even if all parties are not joined in the appeal, as long as the decree proceeds on a common ground. Furthermore, the judgment discusses previous cases to distinguish the present case from those where the entire appeal abated due to the death of a joint decree holder. It highlights the importance of maintaining consistency in decrees and avoiding conflicting decisions between the same parties based on the same cause of action. The judgment also emphasizes the competence of the appellate court to pass appropriate decrees in appeals filed by one of several parties against whom a decree is made on common grounds. Moreover, the judgment addresses the issue of abatement in cases where a party dies, and one of the legal representatives is already on the record in another capacity. It clarifies that formal application for showing an heir as a legal representative is not necessary if the party is already on the record in a different capacity. Failure to bring all heirs on record within the prescribed time does not lead to abatement of the proceeding. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the proceeding to the High Court for further consideration, emphasizing the importance of interpreting the rules correctly and ensuring all relevant parties are brought on record in a timely manner to avoid abatement of appeals.
|
