9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to be dead when the summons issued by this court was sought to be served on him. On this, the official liquidator moved the present application for impleading his legal representatives. In response to this application, the legal representatives have submitted that the petition is not maintainable because it was filed against a dead person and Shri Krishan Lal had died on 19th March, 1968, which was before the main application was moved. It is necessary to distinguish the preliminary objection from the objection on merits, because in the first instance it is submitted that the original petition has been filed against a dead person and, therefore, this application cannot be filed, and on the second point, it is submitted that Shri Krishan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is claimed to have died several years before the institution of the suit. As the death certificate was shown to me, I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement. I would hold that the said respondent, Krishan Lal, was dead even when the case was instituted. This is, therefore, not a case which can be treated as null and void, but is a case in which one of the parties was dead whose name has naturally to be struck out. The further question that arises in these cases is that after striking out the name of the deceased person from the array of parties, are the legal representatives to be joined under Order 22, rule 4 or under Order 1, rule 10 or under Order 6, rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Obviously, if the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation is dealt with in Firm Pala Mal-Narain Mal v. Fauja Singh, AIR 1926 Lah. 153, wherein it was held that the name of that defendant is to be struck out and the case is to be proceeded with. But, suppose the person who has died is a necessary party, then his legal representatives have to be impleaded somehow or other. That situation is discussed in Roop Chand v. Sardar Khan, AIR 1928 Lah. 359, wherein it is held that either an amendment of the plaint has to be made or the suit has to be dismissed. A case dealing with the joining of a party under Order 1, rule 10, where one of the defendants was already dead, is Sringeri Mutt Sri Jagathguru Chandra Sekhara Bharathi Swamigal v. Komarasami Goundan, AIR 1917 Mad. 849. This judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
