KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. versus RAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 21-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 1 S.C.R. 543 
KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1094 OF 2015) 
JANUARY 21, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Suit - Maintainability of - On the ground of non-joinder 
A 
B 
of parties - Institution of suit. by father of owners of the 
property in question - However, the owners inducted as 
C 
plaintiffs as heirs, after death of their father - Held: Description 
of the plaintiffs as owners being heirs instead of description 
as owners in their own right, is an irregularity which can be 
cured under 0. 1 r. 10 CPC -
The wrong description of 
plaintiffs which did not prejudice to the defendant would not D 
affect the maintainability of the suit - Revisional court was not 
right in reversing the decree on such technicality which did 
not affect the merits of the case - Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 - Or. 1 r.10 and s.99. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.lt is undisputed that appellant Nos.1 and 2 
E 
are the sole owners of the property in question. It is not 
disputed that they were substituted as plaintiffs on the 
death of their father (the original plaintiff) before the trial 
F 
Court itself. It is also not disputed that they could maintain 
the suit for eviction. Thus on admitted facts, only defect 
pointed out was of formal nature in description without, 
in any manner, affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of 
the Court. Such irregularity could have been corrected 
G 
by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 and can be corrected 
even at this stage unless the defendant is, in any manner, 
prejudiced. [para 9] [548-G-H; 549-A] 
543 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2.The Revision Court is not justified in reversing the 
decree of the trial Court on such a technicality which did 
not in any manner affect the merits of the case, in view 
of Section 99 CPC that no decree to be reversed or 
modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or 
B jurisdiction. [para 1 OJ [549-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1094 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2012 of the 
C High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No. 52578 of 
2004. 
D 
V. Shekhar, Abhigya, Arvind Kumar Singh, Nishant 
Anaand, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellants. 
Sandeep Narain, Ajaay Bansal, S. Naraian & Co. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
E 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and 
order dated 19th Odober, 2012 passed by the High court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52578 
of 2004. 
3. The question for consideration is whether the suit filed 
by the father of the appellants in respect of property owned by 
appellants Nos.1 and 2 could be held to be not maintainable 
even when the appellants were added as plaintiffs as heirs of 
G their father who died during pendency of the suit and whether 
description of the appellants who are owners as heirs instead 
of 
owners 
in 
their 
own 
right 
will 
be 
a case of mere "error, defect or irregularity" not affecting the 
merits or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the 
H maintainability of the suit. 
KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY v. RAMESH CHANDRA 
545 
GOYAL (D) TH LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
' 
4. Raj Kumar was owner of the suit property who died on 
A 
4th February, 1994. Shiv Kumar Dubey, brother of Raj Kumar 
filed the suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant in his capacity 
as heir of Raj Kumar on the ground of non payment of rent on 
24th April, 1995. During pendency of the suit, Shiv Kumar 
Dubey died on 11th August, 1996 and the appellants Kuldeep 
B 
Kumar and Pradeep Kumar sons of Shiv Kumar Dubey and 
Smt. Dayawati widow of Shiv Kumar Dubey were substituted 
as plaintiffs being his heirs. The suit was contested by the tenant 
(who has also died during pendency of the proceedings in this 
Court and who has been substituted by his legal heirs) by filing c 
a written statement admitting that Raj Kumar was the owner and 
Shiv Kumar was his brother and heir apart from other heirs. It 
was stated that rent was deposited in Court. Sister of Raj 
Kumar, an heir of Raj Kumar, was also a necessary party. It 
may be mentioned that Raj Kumar had executed Will in favour 
D 
of appellants Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar but the said 
appellants were shown in cause title only as heirs of Shiv Kumar 
and not as owners. No objection was, however, r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.