2017 (10) TMI 1397 - SC - Indian Laws

Abatement of suit - bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 - Held that - It is only if a defendant dies during the pendency of the suit that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code can be invoked. Since one of the defendants i.e. defendant No.7 has expired prior to the filing of the suit, there is no legal impediment in impleading the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, for the simple reason that the plaintiff in any case could have instituted a fresh suit against these legal representatives on the date he moved an application for making them parties, subject of course to the law of limitation. There is no bar for filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10, even when the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed as not maintainable under the facts of the case. The legal heirs of the deceased person in such a matter can be added in the array of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code read with Section 151 of the Code subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, to be decided during the course of trial. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) when a defendant dies before the filing of the suit.
2. Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC in bringing legal representatives of a deceased defendant on record.
3. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the dismissal of an application under Order 22 Rule 4 when a subsequent application is filed under Order 1 Rule 10.
4. The role of procedural technicalities versus substantive justice in the context of impleading parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) when a defendant dies before the filing of the suit:
The Court clarified that Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC applies only when a defendant dies during the pendency of the suit. Since defendant no. 7 had expired before the suit was filed, the legal representatives of such a deceased defendant cannot be brought on record under this provision. The trial court had correctly dismissed the initial application under Order 22 Rule 4 as not maintainable because it applies only if a party dies during the pendency of the suit.

2. Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC in bringing legal representatives of a deceased defendant on record:
Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC allows the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if their presence is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating upon and settling all the questions involved in the suit. The Court emphasized that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 7 are necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute. Therefore, they should be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10, subject to the law of limitation.

3. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the dismissal of an application under Order 22 Rule 4 when a subsequent application is filed under Order 1 Rule 10:
The Court held that the dismissal of the application under Order 22 Rule 4 as not maintainable does not act as res judicata for a subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10. The earlier dismissal was not on the merits but on the ground of non-maintainability, thus not barring the appellant from filing a maintainable application under a different provision.

4. The role of procedural technicalities versus substantive justice in the context of impleading parties:
The Court stressed that procedural laws are designed to facilitate justice and should not impede it. It criticized the hyper-technical approach of the lower courts and underscored that courts should aim to deliver substantive justice rather than getting bogged down by procedural technicalities. The Court cited several precedents to support the view that procedural lapses should not prevent the court from doing justice, especially when the mistake is bona fide and made in good faith.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal. It directed the trial court to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be decided during the trial. The Court emphasized that justice should prevail over procedural technicalities, and the legal representatives must be brought on record to ensure a fair adjudication of the dispute.