Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A petition was allowed by Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., filed with the prayer to quash an order and take petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased.

The bone of contention in the present matter was that the application of the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed while the legal representatives of the deceased (one of the plaintiffs) had not been taken on record. The counsel for the petitioner, B.L. Choudhary, submitted that the defendants had informed the plaintiff on 08-04-2013 regarding the death of the deceased but the necessary steps could not be taken promptly, and therefore, the application for taking the legal representatives of the deceased on record was dismissed. The respondent, however, submitted that such delay was fatal and the legal representative should not be taken on record at such a later stage and thus the order passed in the application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 read with Section 151 of CPC was justified. The petitioner relied on the case of Ram Sumiran v. D.D.C, (1985) 1 SCC 431, wherein the Court held that merely because no application was made by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record would not be a valid ground for refusing to grant the application of the appellants for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record because the appellants were from the rural area and in a country like India where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it would not be fair to presume that everyone knows that on death of respondent, the legal representatives have to be brought on record within a certain time.

The Court held that delay in taking the legal representatives on record was there, but if the impugned order was permitted and the petitioners were not made a party to the suit then the rights of the petitioner would remain undetermined. The petition was thus allowed. [Kesar Bai v. Gram Panchayat, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 600, decided on 23-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J, dismissed a petition that revolved around the petitioner’s post-admission steps for service of notice on the private respondents.

The petitioner was required to take post-admission steps for the service of the private respondents. For this purpose, the case was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial), however, for want of requisite steps notices could not be issued. Thereafter, though steps were taken by the petitioner majority of the notices were received back unserved for want of correct address and in some cases even the respondents reported to have died. Petitioner was directed to take fresh steps for service of unserved respondents within four weeks and during the same time was also directed to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondents. However, neither the process fee for unserved respondents nor steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondents were taken by the petitioner. The court observed that no one had even cared to put in an appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the concerned Registrar, which clearly indicated that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the instant.

The Court thus rejected dismissed the petition. [Sadhana v. Nikki Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 44, decided on 08-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of C.V. Bhadang, J. held that the petitioners in the present writ petition was liable to pay the amount decreed against the judgment-debtor who was since deceased.

The petitioners were legal representatives Eric Sequeira. He was Chairman of the petitioner company and a judgment debtor died after the decree was passed. Now the decree-holder sought to execute the decree against the petitioners. The Executing Court held that the since petitioners succeeded to assess left behind by Eric Sequeira, they are liable to satisfy the decree. C.A. Ferreira, Advocate for the petitioners contended that legal representatives could not be held responsible to satisfy the decree. On the other hand, Yogesh V. Nadkarni, Advocate for respondents supported the impugned order.

On hearing the parties, the High Court found no case to interfere in the impugned order. It was of the opinion that the Executing Court was right in holding that the petitioners were liable to satisfy the decree by which the Company and Eric Sequeira were jointly and severally held liable today the amount of decree. The Execution Court was directed to proceed having regard to the terms of Section 50 CPC. The petition was dismissed. [Goan Residential Resorts (P) Ltd. v. Raghbir Singh Panwar, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 5756, Order dated 30-11-2018]