LexGURCHARAN SINGH versus SURJIT SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[20121 11 S.C.R. 459 GURCHARAN SINGH v. SURJIT SINGH AND ANR. I.A. Nos.2 to 6 in A Special Leave Petition (C) No.7735 of 2010 B NOVEMBER 2, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XX/I - Whether C an application for substitution of a respondent who was dead when the Special Leave Petition was filed was maintainable, and if not, what is the remedy of the petitioner when he comes to learn that the respondent was actually dead when he filed the Special Leave Petition - Held: Where the respondent was D dead when the Special Leave Petition was filed, the Court can, in the interest of justice, allow an application for amendment of the Special Leave Petition and condone the delay in filing such an application for amendment if the delay is satisfactorily explained - Rules 8 and 9 in Order XVI of the E Supreme Court Rules, which provide for substitution and addition of parties, will apply where at the time of filing of the Special Leave Petition, the respondent was alive and after the filing of the Special Leave Petition his legal representatives are sought to be substituted, but will not apply where the F respondent was dead when the Special Leave Petition was filed - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order XVI, Rules 8 and 9. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna v. Protab Chandra Ghose and Others AIR (33) 1946 Federal Court 13; G (Adusumilli) Gopalakrishnayya & Anr. v. Adivi Lakshmana Rao AIR 1925 Madras 1210 and State of West Bengal v. Manisha Maity and Others AIR 1965 Calcutta 459- referred to. 459 H 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A Govind Kavirai Purohito v. Gauranga Sa AIR (1924) Madras 56 - held overruled. H.H; Darbar Alabhai Vajsurbhai & Ors. v. Bhura Bhaya & Ors. AIR 1937 Bombay 401; Sachindra Chandra 8 Chakravarti v. Jnanendra Narayan Singh Roy & Anr. AIR 1963 Calcutta 417; Angadi Veettil Sreedharan vs. Cheruvalli I/lath Sreedharan Embrandiri Manoor AIR 1968 Kerala 196; Vantaku Appalanaidu & Ors. v. Peddinti Demudamma & Anr. AIR 1982 A.P. 281; Karuppaswamy and Others v. C. Ramamurthy AIR 1993 SC 2324: 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 121 C and Ram Kala v. Deputy Director (Consolidation) and Others (1997) 7 sec 498 - cited. Case Law Reference: D AIR (33) 1946 Federal referred to Paras 2, 3 Court 13 AIR 1925 Madras 1210 referred to Paras 2, 4 AIR 1937 Bombay 401 cited Para 2 E AIR 1963 Calcutta 417 cited Para 2 AIR 1965 Calcutta 459 referred to Paras 2, 5 AIR 1968 Kerala 196 cited Para 2 F AIR 1982 A.P. 281 cited Para 2 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 121 cited Para 2 (1997) 1 sec 498 cited Para 2 AIR (1924) Madras 56 held overruled Para 4 G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 2-6 IN Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7735 of 2010. H GURCHARAN SINGH v. SURJIT SINGH AND ANR. 461 From the Judgment & Order dated 17.08.2009 of the High A Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 6025 of 2008. Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Gagan Gupta for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER B 1. These interlocutory applications have been filed by the C petitioner in Special Leave Petition No.7735 of 2010. I.A. No. 2 of 2011 is an application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1. As respondent no.1 died on 09.06.2009 and the application for substitution has been filed on 05.09.2011, I.A. No.3 of 2011 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution of D legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. The question which I have to decide is whether an application for substitution of a respondent who was dead when the Special Leave Petition was filed was maintainable, and if not, the remedy of the petitioner when he comes to learn that the E respondent was actually dead when he filed the Special Leave Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the provisions of Order XXll of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 F (for short "the CPC") as well as the amendments made thereto by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and submitted that even where the respondent was dead when the Special Leave Petition was filed, his legal heirs can be substituted under these provisions of the C.P.C. He also relied on the decisions in G Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna v. Protab Chandra Ghose and Others [AIR (33) 1946 Federal Court 13], (Adusumilli) Gopalakrishnayya & Anr. v. Adivi Lakshmana Rao [AIR 192
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.