MANI RAM AND ANR.versusHARI SINGH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 180
- Decided
- 21 July 1992
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- T K THOMMEN
Holding
The decree need not be set aside; the applications to bring the deceased appellant's legal representatives on record are allowable, and the High Court should have considered them, but the proper remedy is not setting aside the decree.
Summary
In Mani Ram & Anr. v. Hari Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court examined applications filed under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151, seeking to bring the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record in a regular second appeal. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had dismissed those applications and partially allowed the appeal, leading the appellants to argue that the decree, which was in favour of the dead appellant, should be set aside. The Supreme Court held that because the appeal was allowed in part, the High Court ought to have considered the applications on their merits, but this procedural lapse does not warrant setting aside the decree; at most a remand would be appropriate, though even that was unnecessary as the applications were clearly allowable despite a 15‑day delay justified by a medical certificate. Citing Harjeet Singh v. Raj Kishore and Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, the Court affirmed that the delay could be condoned. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a decree passed in favour of a deceased appellant can be set aside.
- Whether applications under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9, filed after a delay, should be condoned.
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the applications without considering their merits.
- Whether the appropriate remedy is remand or setting aside the decree.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 22 Rule 3, s. Order 22 Rule 9, s. Section 151
Subjects
Judgment
A MANI RAM AND ANR.
v.
HARi SINGH AND ORS.
JULY 21, 1992
B [DR. T.K. THOMMEN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order 22 Rules 3 and 9-Application for bringing on record legal
C representatives-Delay-Condonation of
Applications for bringing on record the legal representatives of one
of the appellants in a Regular Second Appeal, were dismissed by the High
-
Court. However, the High Court partly allowed the Regular Second Appeal.
D The present appeals have been filed against the High Court,s oi."ders.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that since the decree made
was in favour of a dead man also, the decree sh~uld be set aside.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
E HELD: 1. Applications under Order 22 Rules 3 and 9 read with
section 151 CPC were made to bring the heirs of the deceased on ~ord
as appellants in the main appeal and, since the appeal was allowed in part,
F
the High Court ought to have considered the applications on merits.
However, this is not a good ground for setting aside the decree. At the
most, there would be a case for remand; but even that is not necessary for
-
the applications are clearly allowable. There was a delay of 15 days in ·the
application to bring the heirs on record and it was explained, supported
·by a medical certificate, that the third appellant, who was looking after the
appeals before the High Court, has suffered from typhoid during the
relevant period. [593-H; 594-A]
G
HaTjeet Singh v. Raj [(jshore & Ors., [1984) 3 SCC 573, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1UJ7 r- ·
~d 1268 of 1978.
H From the Judgment and Order dated "3.4.78 of the Punjab &
592
MANI RAM v. HARi SINGH (BHARUCHA, J.) 593
~- Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 105 and 601 of 1971. A
D.V. Sehgal, S.K. Bagga, Ms. Shurestha Bagga, Ved Prakash Jyani
and Seeraj Bagga for the Appellants.
Anil Kumar Gupta for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHARUCHA, J. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana found no merit in Regular Second Appeal No.601 of
1971 and dismissed the same with costs. He allowed, to the extent indicated
--- in the judgment and order under appeal, Regular Second Appeal No. 105 · C
of 1971 with no order as to costs.
Learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated that, in view of the
judgment of this Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1986]
2 S.C.C. 249, there was no merit in the appeal against the order on Regular D
Second Appeal No. 601 of 1971.
Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the
decree made in Regular Second Appeal No.105 of 1971 was in favour, inter
alia, of dead man, namely, the second appellant Rup Ram and that,
_--< therefore, the decree should be set aside. E
We find that after Rup Ram died an application (Civil Miscellaneous
- No.1122/C of 1975) under Order 22 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure was made praying that delay be condoned, the
legal representatives of the deceased appellant Rup Ram be allowed to be
brought on record and the abatement, if any, be set aside. Simultaneously, F
a second application (Civil Miscellaneous No.1123/C of 1975) was filed
under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying that the three sons of Rup Ram be brought on record
as appellants in his place. In the order under appeal, the learned Single
Judge, stated, "Since R.SA ·No.601 of 1971 has been dismissed, Civil G
Miscellaneous Application Nos.1122-C and 1123-C of 1975 have become
infructuous and the same are also dismissed".
Clearly, there was a misapprehension in the mind of the learned
Single Judge. The aforesaid applications were made to bring the heirs of
Rup Ram on record as appellants in Appeal No.105 of 1971 and, since H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.
A the learned Single Judge was allowing that appeal in part, he ought to have
considered the two applications on merits. However, this is not a good
ground for setting aside the decree. At the most, there would be a case for
remand; but even that, we think, is not necessary for the applications are
clearly allowable. There was a delay of 15 days in the application to bring
B the heirs on record and it was explained, supported by a medical certifi-
cate, that the third appellant, who was looking after the appeals before the
High Court, had suffered from typhoid during the relevant period. We are
supported in the view that we take by the judgement of this Court in Harjeet
Singh v. Raj Kishore & Ors., [1984) 3 S.C.C. 573.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. -
G.N. Appeals dismissed.
'
~-
--
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.