Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 488 (GUJ)

SHAMJI PREMJI CHANDARANA v. NAGINDAS CHHAGANLAL

2000-06-16

J.R.VORA

body2000
J. R. VORA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Service is waived by learned Advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan for the opponents. ( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. R. C. Kakkad for the applicants and learned Advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan for the opponents. The sole question which arises for determination of this application is whether Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 applies to Civil Revision Application. ( 3 ) FEW necessary facts reveals that a Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 1992 was filed by one Premji Virji - original defendant - tenant. A Civil Suit No. 744/77 was filed by the present opponents against Premji Virji under the Bombay Rent Act for eviction in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) at Jamnagar. The suit came to be decreed and, therefore, Premji Virji original defendant filed an Appeal in the court of District Judge at Jamnagar, being Civil Regular Appeal No. 237 of 1983, which also came to be dismissed by learned Asst. Judge, Jamnagar on 19th September, 1991. Being aggrieved, Premji Virji, filed Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 1992 in this Court. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this Civil Revision Application, Premji Virji died and an order for abatement on Revision came to be passed. An application thereafter i. e. the present Misc. Civil Application came to be filed by the present applicants stating that they are the legal heirs of Premji Virji - original petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 1992 and they are required to be substituted in place of deceased applicant - Premji Virji. The application mainly was opposed on the ground that the application filed by the present applicants, for substitution of legal heirs of party deceased during pendency of Civil Revision Application No. 611/92, is far beyond the period of limitation. The application mainly was opposed on the ground that the application filed by the present applicants, for substitution of legal heirs of party deceased during pendency of Civil Revision Application No. 611/92, is far beyond the period of limitation. ( 5 ) THE controversy squarely falls within the ratio decidendi of the decision of this court in the matter of JAGDISHBHAI J. DESAI v. VIDYABEN RAMBHAI PATEL (Decd.), reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1635 , wherein after relying on the decision of the High Court of Bombay, it has been held that Order 22 of CPC has not been made applicable to Revision Application by any provision of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore Revision proceedings would not abate on the failure of the applicant to bring legal heirs of deceased party on record within prescribed period of limitation. This proposition of law, therefore, estalishes that in such circumstances, legal heirs can be brought on record any time during pendency of revision regardless of Limitation which has no application so far. ( 6 ) HAVING relied on the above said decision, it is clear that the limitation prescribed for the suits and the appeals would not be applicable to the present revision. In this view of the matter the present Civil Misc. Application of legal heirs to be substituted in place of deceased Premji Virji petitioner/applicant of Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 1992 is required to be allowed. For the above said reasons, the application is allowed. The present applicants are ordered to be substituted in place of Premji Virji deceased petitioner in Civil Revision Application NO. 611 of 1992. The applicants are directed to carry out necessary amendments immediately. Rule is made absolute to that extent. ( 7 ) OFFICE is directed to place Civil Revision Application No. 611 of 1992 for final hearing before the appropriate court. .