Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the defendants in Original Suit No. 303/2011 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bailhongal, sitting at Kittur, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the trial court. The suit was instituted on 16.11.2011 by the sole plaintiff, Smt. Gangawwa Chandrashekhar Hiremath, seeking a decree of declaration and consequential reliefs. The defendants filed their written statement on 20.1.2012 contesting the suit. The sole plaintiff died on 16.10.2012. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to bring themselves on record as legal representatives. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 31.01.2013. The defendants/petitioners challenged this order in the writ petition, contending that the application ought to have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and not Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, and that the trial court had erred in allowing the substitution. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, examined the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, which deals with the procedure in case of death of a defendant. The court noted that the application was filed within the prescribed period and that the trial court had correctly applied the provision. The High Court held that there was no error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned order and that the writ petition was devoid of merit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleading Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Substitution of deceased defendant - The trial court allowed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The High Court held that the order was not erroneous and that the writ petition challenging it was devoid of merit. (Para 4) B) Civil Procedure Code - Abatement of Suit - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - The court noted that the suit had not abated as the application for substitution was filed within time. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the trial court's order. (Para 4) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court held that the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 against an interlocutory order allowing substitution of legal representatives was not maintainable as the order did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, and whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against such an order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order allowing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was not erroneous and that the writ petition was devoid of merit.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Impleading legal representatives
- Abatement of suit
- Substitution of parties
