Punjab & Haryana High Court Raps Trial Court For Overlooking 32 Yrs Old CPC Amendment
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has pulled up trial Court for dismissing a plea, overlooking 32 years old CPC amendment. Ignoring the amendment done in Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which became enforceable w.e.f 21.02.1992, the trial court had dismissed the application filed by Class I heirs for permission to bring them on record.Justice Anil Ksheterpal said,...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has pulled up trial Court for dismissing a plea, overlooking 32 years old CPC amendment. Ignoring the amendment done in Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which became enforceable w.e.f 21.02.1992, the trial court had dismissed the application filed by Class I heirs for permission to bring them on record.
Justice Anil Ksheterpal said, “It is unfortunate that the trial court has failed to take note of the amendment made in Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which became enforceable w.e.f 21.02.1992. While amending the Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was laid down that where within the time limited by law, no application is filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the plaintiff, the suit shall not abate and the judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death.”
The Court remarked that "even after passage of nearly 32 years, the trial court has overlooked the aforesaid amendment.”
These observations came in response to the revision plea filed against the order of the trial court which had dismissed the application filed by Class I heirs for permission to bring them on record.
Perusing the amendment done in 1992, Justice Kshetrapal observed that the Court should have allowed the application even if it was not filed within the prescribed time, “particularly when the suit shall not have abated.”
Adding that the legal representatives are brought on record to prosecute or defend the suit, the bench said, “This provision has been incorporated in order to give an opportunity to the legal representatives to continue with the proceedings.”
In the light of the above the Court allowed the petition, stating that, “trial court is directed to permit the legal representatives.”
Appearance: Vivek K Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners
Satnam Singh and Kuljinder Singh, Advocates for the respondents
Title: Manjit Kaur and others v. Paramjit Singh and others