607 Days Delay Condoned: NCDRC Allows Bringing On Record Legal Representatives Of Deceased Litigant

The Consumer complaint was instituted by one Mr. OP Mehta and Sidhant Wadia against DLF Homes Rajapura Pvt. Ltd. The Court was informed by the counsels that the first complainant has expired and steps were sought to be taken to bring on record the legal representative of the late complainant no. 1.

Counsel informed the court that the legal representative of the first complainant Vinay Mehta and his wife live in Delhi but his daughter Leena Arora and Sonia Arora live outside Delhi so it took some time to coordinate and obtain the requisite documents and the affidavits.

Counsel appearing for DLF opposed this move and argued that the complainant had passed away in 2018. He stated that the application to bring legal heirs on record was filed on 2019 with an inordinate delay of 607 and that too after a direction by the Commission vide order dated 19 July, 2019.

It was further submitted that Article 120 of the Schedule of Limitation Act provides that the legal representatives of the deceased party may be made parties within 90 days of the death of the concerned party. It is thus manifest that if steps are not taken within 90 days of the death, then the suit or the appeal abates. As per the above, it was submitted that there is no right to survive on behalf of the complainants.

The Court after hearing both the parties placed reliance on a judgement pronounced by the Supreme Court in Shri Rinku Dev. Chela Bawa Harjug Dass vs. Som Dass (deceased) through his Chela Shiam Das wherein the court held that Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC is based on principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit had been devolved upon another during the pendency of the suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of court.

When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the interest of the representative, the rule that has to be applied is Order 22, rule 10 and not Rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes plea as a consequence of death or for any other reason.

Court also placed reliance on another Apex Court judgement Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v Jai Prakash University wherein the Court had held that prayer for leave can be made not only by the person upon whom interest has devolved, but also by the plaintiff or any other party or person interested.

In view of the above judgements, the Court allowed the amendment memo of parties to be filed along with the application and listed it for further hearing on 25 May, 2022.

Case Title : O.P Mehta & ors v DLF Homes Rajapura Pvt. Ltd

Click Here To Read/Download Order