High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in CPC Case — Order 43 Rule 1(a) — Setting Aside Order Dismissing Application for Impleading Legal Representatives. The court held that the lower appellate court must consider sufficient cause for delay and the possibility of proceeding against other respondents before dismissing an application for impleading legal representatives.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Smt M Veena, filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, on I.A.No.3 in R.A.No.60/2016. The lower appellate court had dismissed the application filed by the appellant to implead the legal representatives of respondent No.1 (Smt Suma) who had died during the pendency of the regular appeal. The appellant contended that the lower court erred in holding that the appeal had abated without considering the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The High Court observed that the lower appellate court did not examine whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application or whether the appeal could proceed against the remaining respondents. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration, directing it to decide the application on merits after hearing all parties. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the lower court should dispose of the application within three months.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleading Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Abatement - The appellant sought to implead legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 in a regular appeal. The lower appellate court dismissed the application holding that the appeal had abated. The High Court held that the court should have considered whether there was sufficient cause for not bringing the legal representatives on record within time and whether the appeal could proceed against other respondents. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure Code - Sufficient Cause - Order 22 Rule 9 CPC - Delay in Filing Application - The appellant filed the application after the death of respondent No.1, but the court did not examine the reasons for delay. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the question of sufficient cause and abatement. (Paras 8-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the application for impleading legal representatives of the deceased respondent and whether the appeal had abated.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, on I.A.No.3 in R.A.No.60/2016, and remanded the matter back to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration of the application on merits, after hearing all parties, within three months.

Law Points

  • Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
  • Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
  • abatement of appeal
  • impleading legal representatives
  • sufficient cause for delay
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (KAR) (11) 14

MFA NO.7023/2017 (CPC)

2018-11-14

K.N. Phaneendra

Sri. Bhaskar Hegde

Smt M Veena

Smt Suma and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC against an order dismissing an application for impleading legal representatives.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 18.07.2017 on I.A.No.3 in R.A.No.60/2016 and to allow the application for impleading legal representatives.

Filing Reason

The lower appellate court dismissed the application for impleading legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, holding that the appeal had abated.

Previous Decisions

The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, dismissed I.A.No.3 in R.A.No.60/2016 on 18.07.2017.

Issues

Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the application for impleading legal representatives of the deceased respondent without considering sufficient cause. Whether the appeal had abated and whether the court should have considered proceeding against other respondents.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the lower court failed to consider Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and that the appeal could proceed against other respondents. Respondents opposed the application, contending that the appeal had abated.

Ratio Decidendi

The lower appellate court must consider whether there is sufficient cause for not bringing the legal representatives on record within the prescribed time and whether the appeal can proceed against the remaining respondents before dismissing an application for impleading legal representatives or holding that the appeal has abated.

Judgment Excerpts

The lower appellate court has not considered the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The court ought to have considered whether there is sufficient cause for not bringing the legal representatives on record within time.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a regular appeal (R.A.No.60/2016) before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. During the pendency of that appeal, respondent No.1 died. The appellant filed I.A.No.3 to implead the legal representatives of the deceased. The lower court dismissed the application on 18.07.2017. The appellant then filed the present MFA under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 43 Rule 1(a), Order 22 Rule 4, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in CPC Case — Order 43 Rule 1(a) — Setting Aside Order Dismissing Application for Impleading Legal Representatives. The court held that the lower appellate court must consider sufficient cause for delay and t...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Flat Possession Case — Builders Failed to Prove Ownership of Land. Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Under Transfer of Property Act, 1882.