9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application under Order 22, rule 4 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading legal representatives in a proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956. - Preliminary objection raised by legal representatives regarding maintainability of the petition against a deceased person. - Distinction between filing a suit against a dead person and joining a deceased party in a suit. - Whether legal representatives should be joined under Order 22, rule 4, Order 1, rule 10, or Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Analysis: The judgment deals with an application under Order 22, rule 4 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956. The main issue arises from the fact that one of the respondents named in the petition was found to be deceased when the summons were to be served. The official liquidator sought to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The legal representatives objected, claiming the petition was not maintainable as it was filed against a dead person. The court distinguishes between filing a suit against a dead person and joining a deceased party in a suit. The legal effect of the objection raised by the legal representatives is considered, emphasizing that if a suit is filed against a dead person, it is a nullity, and no legal representatives can be joined. The judgment clarifies the legal position based on precedents, stating that if a suit is filed against a dead person, it is considered void, and no legal representatives can be joined. However, if a suit is filed against multiple parties, one of whom is deceased, the court can strike out the name of the deceased party as they were wrongly joined due to being deceased at the time of institution. In the present case, the court confirms the death of the respondent before the institution of the suit, making it a case where the deceased party's name must be struck out. Regarding joining legal representatives, the judgment delves into the applicability of Order 22, rule 4, Order 1, rule 10, and Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is highlighted that Order 22 applies when succession or transfer occurs during the pendency of a suit, and since the deceased party was wrongly joined and struck out, the application under Order 22 is deemed not maintainable. The court discusses that if a case is instituted against a dead person as the sole party, even Order 1, rule 10, or Order 6, rule 17 cannot be utilized for an amendment. In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the application under Order 22 but states that orders will be passed under Order 1, rule 10 in the main case for joining the legal representatives in their personal capacity, not as legal representatives. The legal representatives are to be joined in their own right, and their claim in the main case will be decided on its merits. The court emphasizes that the present application cannot be allowed, and it is accordingly dismissed.
|
