Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1794 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Barda (Deceased)

2009-08-07

PAWAN CHANDRA, RAKESH HOOJA

body2009
Mk- gwtk] v/;{k-&;g vkns'k jsLiksMsUV ds vf/koDrk dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuki= fnukad 1-8-2001] izkFkhZ jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuki= vUrxZr vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 tkIrk nhokuh fnukad 14-1-2003 ,oa foi{kh jsLiksMsUV dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuki= vUrxZr /kkjk 151 tkIrk nhokuh fnukad 19-2-2009 ds lEcU/k esa ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA 2- geus mDr rhuksa izkFkZuki=ksa ds lEcU/k esa mHk; i{kksa ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl /;kuiwoZd lquh ,oa i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;kA 3- izkFkZuki= fnukad 1-8-2001 ds tfj;s jsLiksMsUV i{k ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk us bl vk'k; dh lwpuk nh gS fd jsLiksMsaV cjnk dh e`R;q fnukad 17-6-2000 dks xzke nsox< esa gks x;h gS tcfd jkT; ljdkj }kjk blh e`rd O;fDr ds fo:) ;g vihy izLrqr dh gSA bl fLFkfr esa mUgksaus e`rd ds dk;e eqdkeku dks u;s fljs ls uksfVl tkjh dj bl vihy esa i{kdkj cukus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA 4- mDr lwpuk ds mijkUr jkT; ljdkj ds vf/koDrk us yxHkx 17 ekg mijkUr vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 lhihlh dk izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj e`rd cjnk ds N% dk;e eqdkeku dks fjdkMZ ij fy;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA bl izkFkZuki= ds i'pkr~ jsLiksMsUV ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk us nwljk izkFkZuki= vUrxZr /kkjk 151 tkIrk nhokuh bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k gS fd pwafd jsLiksMsUV cjnk dh e`R;q vihy izLrqr djus ds iwoZ gh fnukad 17-6-2000 dks gks pqdh FkhA bl dkj.k ls vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 tkIrk nhokuh ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gS vkSj bl fLFkfr esa mUgksaus vihy dks [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA ;ksX; vf/koDrk jsLiksMsUV us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa 2007¼1½ vkjvkjVh ist 9 = RLW 2006(2) RJ 1249 jktLFkku jkT; cuke e`rd izrkikjke dh uthjksa dk voyEc fy;k gS] ftldk geus /;kuiwoZd ,oa lEekuiwoZd v/;;u fd;k gSA 5- jkT; ljdkj ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk Jh vkj-ds- xqIrk Lohdkj djrs gS fd bl ekeys esa jkT; ljdkj tfj;s rglhynkj nsox< }kjk e`rd ds fo:) vihy izLrqr dh x;h gS D;ksafd jsLiksMsUV cjnk dk fu/ku vihy izLrqr djus ds iwoZ fnukad 17-6-2000 dks gks x;k Fkk vkSj vihy fnukad 24-4-2001 dks izLrqr dh x;h gSA ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrs gS fd bl fLFkfr esa vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 tkIrk nhokuh ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gS ijUrq mudk dFku gS fd bl izdj.k dh vfu;ferrk dks /kkjk 153 lhihlh ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj nq:Lr fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj bl ckcr mUgksaus U;k;ky; ls vihy dks nq:Lr djus dh vuqefr fn;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA mUgksaus vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa 1993 vkjvkjMh ist 314 eSllZ 'kkyhekj jksi oDlZ fyfeVsM o vU; cuke lqjtdj.k o vU; dh uthj izLrqr dh gSA 6- geus mHk; i{kksa ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ij euu fd;k gSA vihykFkhZ i{k ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh vksj ls izLrqr uthj 1993 vkjvkjMh ist 314 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us 'kkyhekj jksi oDlZ fyfeVsM cuke ,l- dju o vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ,oa fofHkUu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa dk lkjxfHkZr foospu djrs gq, iSjk 13 esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "In the present case, the plaintiff died on 14.9.1979, after the decree of the trial Court. The appeal was presented well within time on 10.10.1979. The petitioners came to know about the death of the plaintiff on 22.11.1979, and after making enquiries application was submitted on 12.12.1979, for bringing on record the legal heirs of the plaintiff respondent. This application was submitted within 90 days from the death of the plaintiff who died on 14.9.1979. Had the appeal been filed before 14.9.1979, the day when the plaintiff died, this very application would have been within time and the question of abatement would not have arisen. Therefore, under the particular facts and circumstances of the case, a liberal view of the matter will have to be taken. The lower Court has rejected the application of the petitioners simply on the ground that the appeal against a dead person is nullity and as such his legal representatives cannot be brought on record either under Section 153 C.P.C. or under Order 22 Rule 4 of under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In my opinion, the view taken by the lower Court is perverse. The legal representatives can be brought on record under Section 153 C.P.C. as held by the Madras High Court in Gopalkrishnayya's case (supra). The amendment is allowed relates back to the date of the filing of appeal and as such there is no question of limitation in the present case. The lower Court has taken a perverse view of the matter and in case the order is allowed to stand, it would cause serious injury to the petitioners." 7- ,vkbZvkj 1925 enzkl ist 1210 Gopal Krishnayya & Others vs. Adivi Laxman Rao esa ekuuh; enzkl mPPk U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "If an appeal is presented against a person who was dead at the date of presentation, the Court may under S. 153 permit the cause title to be amended or may return the appeal memorandum for amendment and representation. Although the appeal may be incompetent owing to the wrong person being named as respondent, the Court which deals with it is acting in a proceeding in a suit and as such has full power under S. 153 to direct an amendment of the appeal memorandum." 8- ,vkbZvkj 1969 lqfize dksVZ ist 1267 t;t;jke euksgj yky cuke us'kuy fcfYMx esfVfj;y lIykbZ xqMxkao esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd& "A party can be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs." It was further held that power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. It was also held that since the name in which the suit was instituted was merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises, the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted." 9- ,vkbZvkj 1962 lqfize dksVZ ist 527 euksgjyky pkSiM+k cuke jk;cgknqj jko jktk lsB ghjkyky esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Section 151 itself says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. In the face of such a clear statement, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Code control the inherent power by limiting it or otherwise affecting it. In the face of such a clear statement, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Code control the inherent power by limiting it or otherwise affecting it. The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it." 10- ,vkbZvkj 1989 jktLFkku ist 43 eksgEen vyhe cuke delwn vkye o vU; esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Order 22, non-petitioner 4 C.P.C. is applicable only to those cases where the judgment-debtor dies during the pendency of the proceedings and in such a case an application is to be moved before the Court under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased party. In cases where a party has died before the institution of the proceedings, the question of substituting the legal representatives does not arise and the case does not fall under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC. In cases where a party has died before the institution of the proceedings, the question of substituting the legal representatives does not arise and the case does not fall under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC. 11- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ,oa fofHkUUk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dks e/; utj j[krs gq, tc geus orZeku izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k gS rks ge ekurs gS fd fulUnsg jkT; ljdkj }kjk ftls jsLiksMsUV cjnk ds fo:) f}rh; vihy izLrqr dh gS og cjnk vihy izLrqr djus ls iwoZ gh ej pqdk Fkk ijUrq ;g Hkh lgh gS fd bl rF; dk Kku jkT; ljdkj dks ugha gks ik;k FkkA 12- ;g Hkh lgh gS fd bl rF; dk /;ku jsLiksMsUV i{k us vihykFkhZ i{k dks fnukad 1-8-2001 ds izkFkZuk i= ls djk fn;k Fkk ijUrq vihykFkhZ i{k }kjk 17 ekg mijkUr e`rd ds dk;e eqdkeku dks fjdkMZ ij ysus dk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 14-1-2003 dks izLrqr fd;k gSA 13- ;g Hkh lgh gS fd bl izdj.k esa mifLFkr gqbZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 lhihlh dk izko/kku ykxw ugha gksus dk fl)kUr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us 1993 vkjvkjMh ist 314 dh uthj esa izfrikfnr fd;k gS ijUrq ;g Hkh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS ,slh vfu;ferrk dks /kkjk 153 o /kkjk 151 lhihlh ds rgr nq:Lr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 14- /kkjk 153 lhihlh ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; fdlh Hkh le; vkSj [kpZ-lEcU/kh ,slh 'krksZ ij ;k vU;Fkk tks og Bhd le>s] okn dh fdlh Hkh dk;Zokgh esa dh fdlh Hkh =qfV ;k xyrh dks la'kksf/kr djk ldsxk] vkSj ,slh dk;Zokgh }kjk mBk;s x;s ;k ml ij voyfEcr okLrfod iz'u ; fook|d ds vo/kkj.k ds iz;kstu ds fy, lHkh vko';d la'kks/ku djk;s tk ldsxsaA 15- mijksDr lEiw.kZ fof/kd ifjizs{; esa ge jsLiksMsUV i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 1-8-2001 o 19-1-2009 o vihykFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 14-1-2003 dks vkxs mYysf[kr vuqlkj vkaf'kd :i ls l'krZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; le>rs gSaA 16- ifj.kker% orZeku vihy e`rd O;fDr ds fo:) gksus ls [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ijUrq mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuki=ksa dks U;k;fgr o tufgr esa Lohdkj dj jkT; ljdkj dks jsLiksMsaV e`rd cjnk iq= isek tkfr ekyh fuoklh nsox< ftyk jktleUn ds lHkh oS/kkfud okfjlksa ds fo:) /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ds izkFkZuki= ds lkFk fu;ekuqlkj ,d ekg esa ubZ vihy izLrqr djus dh Lora=rk iznku dh tkrh gSA ubZ vihy izLrqr gksus dh fLFkfr esa jsLiksMsaV i{k muds U;kf;d vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj izfrj{kk@vkifRr;ka izLrqr djus ds fy, Lora= gksaxsA 17- vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA