Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in a suit for partition and separate possession, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, dated 30.06.2018, which rejected their application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record and to set aside the abatement. The suit was originally filed in 2006. The first defendant died on 15.12.2014, but the petitioners claimed they were not aware of his death until 2017. They filed the application in 2017, which was opposed by the respondents on the ground of delay. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court, in its judgment dated 25.07.2024, allowed the writ petition, quashed the trial court's order, and directed that the application be allowed. The court reasoned that the trial court had not properly appreciated the explanation of the petitioners and that the suit being for partition, the rights of the parties would be affected if the LRs were not brought on record. The court also noted that the respondents had already filed their written statement and the suit was at the stage of evidence. The High Court held that the trial court's order was perverse and not sustainable, and that the delay was sufficiently explained. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the suit after bringing the LRs on record.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 9 - Impleadment of Legal Representatives - Sufficient Cause - The trial court rejected the application to bring LRs on record and set aside abatement on the ground of delay, without properly considering the explanation of the petitioners that they were not aware of the death of the defendant and that the suit was for partition and separate possession. The High Court held that the court below ought to have liberally construed the provisions and allowed the application, as the suit was for partition and the rights of the parties would be affected. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 22 Rule 9 - Abatement - Setting Aside - The High Court held that the trial court's order was perverse and not sustainable, as the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application. The court emphasized that procedural laws should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to bring legal representatives on record and in refusing to set aside abatement, despite the petitioners demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, and directed that the application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC be allowed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit after bringing the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 9 CPC
- Sufficient cause for delay
- Impleadment of legal representatives
- Liberal construction of procedural law
- Abatement of suit
