RANGUBAI KOM SHANKAR JAGTAP versus SUNDERABAI BHRATAR SAKHARAM JEDHE AND ORS.

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 01-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
E 
r 
211 
RANGUBAI KOM SHANKAR JAGTAP 
v. 
SUNDERABAI BHRATAR SAKHARAM JEDHE AND ORS. 
March 1, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND R 
S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Legal representatives of deceased respondent-Brought on record 
in final decree proceedings-If enures for purposes of appeal pre-
viously filed-Appeal-When continuation of suit. 
The respondents filed a suit against the petitioner in 1954 for the 
possession of certain property and for mesne profits and obtained a 
decree in their favour. The petitioner's appeal to the High Court was 
dismissed in April 1959 and a· petition for special leave to appeal ta 
this Court was granted in June, 1959. Thereafter, the 7th respond;,nt 
died in November 1959. The petitioner filed the present applications 
in October 1964 for bringing on record the legal representatives of 
the 7th respondent and for condonation of delay on various grounds. 
It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the 
fact that after the preliminary .decree for mesne profits had been 
passed, the respondents/plaintiffs brought the heirs and legal repre-
sentatives of the deceased 7th respondent on record in the final 
decree proceedings within the time prescribed, and as the legal 
representatives were brought on record at one stage of the suit, 
on the basis of the rule laid down by the Privy Council in Bri; 
Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, 44 I.A. 218, no question of abatement 
would arise in respect of the appeal; that the final decree proceed· 
ings are a stage in the suit and the appeal is another stage in the 
suit and, therefore, the bringing on record of the legal representa-
tives in one stage of the suit will enuTe for all stages of the suit. 
HELD : (i) On the facts of the case there were no sulfficient 
grounds for condoning the delay in bringing the legal representatives 
of the 7th respondent on the record. 
(ii) The order bringing the legal representatives of the respon• 
dent on record in the final decree proceedings cannot enure for the! 
benefit of the appeal filed against the preliminary decree. The appeaD 
therefore abated so far as the 7th respondent was concerned. [217D)I 
·G 
An order bringing the legal representatives of a deceased party: 
on the record passed at the stage of an interlocutory application in 
a suit, or passed while an appeal is pending where the suit is sub-
sequently remanded· to the trial court, or if passed while an appea] 
is pending against an interlocutory order in a suit, would enure for 
the subsequent stages of the ·suit; in all these cases the order is 
made at one stage of the suit, be it the suit or in an appeal agains~ 
H 
the interlocut?ry o~der or final .order in the suit, for heri: the appeal 
1s only a contmua!Jon of the smt. But the same legal position cannot 
be invoked where an order is made in a suit subsequent to the filing 
of an appeal at an earlier stage. Such an order cannot be projected 
backwards into the appeal that has already been filed so as to become 
an order in that appeal. [216F-217D] 
Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, 44 I.A. 218 distinguished. 
Shankarnaraina Saralaua v. Laxmi Hengsu, A.LR. 1931 Mad. 277. 
referred to. 
LIB(N)3S.CJ.-i 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1965] 3 S.C.R. 
C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Civil Miscellaneous Peti-
A 
tion Nos. 2402 of 1964. 
Applications for substitution for condonation of delay. 
AND 
Civil Appeal No. 430 of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
B 
April 8, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 6~6 
of 1954. 
S. G. Patwardhan and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for' the appel!ant. 
Naunit Lal, fer the respondents. 
ORDER 
Sobba Rao, J. These are two applicatiom, one for the 
substitution of the legal representatives of respondent No. 7 in 
Civil Appeal No. 430 of 1963 on the file of this Court and the other 
for the condonation of delay in filing the first application. 
The first question is whether there is sufficient ground fon 
excusing the delay in filing the application for bringing the legal 
representatives of the 7th respondent on record. The facts arc as 
follows : Sakharam Maruti Jedhe and others filed Special Suit 
No. IO of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division. 
Poona, against Rangubai Korn Shanker Jagtap for possession of 
the plaint-schedule property and for mesne profits and obtained a 
decree therein. Against the said decree defendant preferred an appeal 
to the High Court of Bombay. The High Court by i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.