 Instead I thank you viewers and their friends. Last time we had seen the various provisions in order to include the meaning of it and settle the principles. And I promised to cite some of the important Supreme Court judgments on order 22 because without that it will not be complete. There are several things which on a reading of the provisions you will not get and which on going through these decisions you will get those principles. Therefore I propose to cite those decisions for your consideration is if possible please take down. I will cite the give the citation and also the name of the case. And I shortly explained what it is not the whole thing for the relevant paragraphs I will just say what the principles are. First, 2019-11 SCC, 1911 SCC, 352, Goli Vijayalakshmi and others Goli Vijayalakshmi and others Yendru Sathiraju, Yendru, Yendru Sathiraju and others. The question which was considered was abatement and when there is conflicting interests. And in paragraph 15 and 16, paragraph 15, 16 and 17 these principles are state. I will read a few sentences in paragraph 16. Abatement of a suit for failure to move an application for bringing the legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation is by operation of law. But once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order distancing the suit has abated. Yet the legal representative proposing to be brought on record or any other applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record would seek for setting aside an agreement. Whereas 17 it is stated the question arises and reference is to the effect that the abatement called appellance where the decree is joined and induced. What will be the result? Now, we have seen in Rule 3 and 4 of Article 22 that on expiry of the period limited for making the application for immigration that is 90 days under Article 12, the suit will abate. Rule 3 sub rule 2 were within the time limited by law now application is made under sub rule 1. The suit shall abate. Rule 4 also sub rule 3 the suit shall abate as against the deceased party. So, the general principle is that if a person is dead his legal representatives are not brought on record. The suit will abate only as against him. Therefore, the legal representatives are not implated it will then the decree that is passed will not be binding on those legal representatives of the deceased party that is a general rule. But there are certain types of decrees which are inseparable in division. For example, a suit for partition without all the sharers on the party the suit cannot be decided. Therefore, if one of the parties dies and his legal representatives are not included the suit will abate as a whole why because otherwise or there is a joint liability or joint right why it is so is that otherwise there will be conflicting decrees such situation cannot be allowed. Therefore, one of the test is whether there will be conflicting decrees. One at the abatement takes effect as against the person whose whose legal representatives are not included. That means the decision which is binding on his legal representatives will be one thing and the decree against the other defendants is likely to be the other thing in the course of time. And if that happens there will be conflicting decrees and if the rights or liabilities are inseparable or joint and such inconsistent and contradictory decrees cannot be passed then the abatement takes effect as a whole that is a principle that is stated in paragraph 17 of this list there are some other decisions also on that point. Now next is 2017-9 SCC 700 parallel citation AIA 2018 Supreme Court 4-9-0 Pankaj Bhai Ramesh Bhai Zala Vadiya Pankaj Bhai Ramesh Bhai Zala Vadiya versus Jetha Bhai Kala Bhai Zala Vadiya. There the question considered was an application under order 1 rule 10 of the code of suit procedure whether it is maintainable in certain circumstances. An application which is filed subsequently under order 1 rule 10 after dismissal of the application under order 22 rule 4 whether it can be entertained it was held subsequent application under order 1 rule could not be dismissed by applying the principle of a suit procedure. Nearly because the application filed earlier under order 22 rule 4 was dismissed on account of non-maintenance and this is discussed in paragraph 7, 14, 4, 7, 14, etc. Substitution and addition of a person as a plaintiff. Plaintiff's application under rule 4 was for including LRs of one of the deceased defendant was dismissed by the trial code that deceased defendant was defendant number 7. As defendant had already died before the filing of the suit that was the situation really employment takes place in a case only after the suit or appeal is filed and one of the parties dies in this particular case the person who is implanted as B7 was no more even at the time of filing the suit therefore really order 22 rule 4 as such strictly are not applied. Then order 1 rule 10 was applied it was held that it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the other application was dismissed as not made available the other application meaning meaning thereby rule 4 application. Inclusion of deceased 7 the suit was through a bona fide estate so a suit was filed against a dead man. Plaintiff's subsequent application under order 1 rule 10 for substitution of LRs of B7 deserves to be allowed. That is to some extent amendment of constate in the suit and if at the time of filing the suit the Plaintiff was aware that the person who is shown as B7 is no more he could very well without any application for employee he could very well made parties the defendant sell us that defendant sell us nobody will question anything because it is only showing those persons in the constate no change is required but instead what he did was he had shown different number 7 as if he was alive in fact he was not alive he was dead so there is no question of upgrading under rule 4 strictly speaking therefore it is only substitution under order 1 rule 10 that is only amendment of constate which cannot be dismissed on the ground of the suit he is the victim laid down here. Next is a year 2017 Supreme Court 2 4 1 9 so in the earlier case the same thing happens mainly in appeals a suit is the an appeal was the and a second appeal is being filed in the High Court the parties may not know who are all the persons who are alive at what point of time etc sometimes it may happen that illiterate persons are there they are aware of the death but they did not report the same to the lawyer nobody is aware the lawyers are not aware of the death of the party so the same cost title which is in the suit will be carried over and later at a particular point of time this will be revealed and at that time the question arises whether the agreement should have been made and what will happen the agreement took place and what will happen to the second appeal that is the question sometimes. So it happens in a daily life next is a year 2017 Supreme Court 2 4 1 9 Gurnaam Singh and others versus Gurbachan Kaur and others Appellan and two respondents expired during the penance of second appeal and no application was filed to bring the legal representatives under court non-compliance was with the rule 3 2 and rule 4 3 presenting in business therapy judgment in second appeal was passed by the high court against a defendant against a deceased defendant but without noticing that what will happen to reject and decree it was held that the decree is in decree against a dead man is null and void paragraph 20 two respondents expired during the penance of second appeal and no application was filed and without noticing it the second appeal was disposed of and in fact on the expiry of 90 days the second appeal had awaited the high court therefore ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the second appeal which stood already disposed paragraph 21 the appeal would be revived by hearing only when firstly the proposed legal representative of the deceased persons had filed an application for substitution of their names and secondly they had applied for setting aside of abatement etc and making them have sufficient cause for setting aside abatement and lastly an application under section 5 of the limitation paragraph 22 it is a fundamental principle of law laid down by this court in a case that a decree passed by the court if it is an entity its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree board this is a very well settled principle so here the second appeal was disposed of with two persons who are dead they were on the pathi array their legal representatives were not included the decree is null and void what is the remedy the person who has to make the application for completing etc can apply to the second appeal and if there is delay to condone delay to set aside abatement and to condone delay and even after disposal of that second appeal the High Court can entertain that application and the necessary corrections can be made records can be made straight and if there are sufficient reasons the High Court may do it next is 2011 12 ACC 773 773 Mangaloram Mangaloram Devagan versus Surendra Singh and others Surendra Singh and others several points are decided here an order dismissing an application under order 22 rule 3 after an inquiry under rule 5 and consequently dismissing the suit is not a decree no appeal would lie from such a remedy is to file a rule what is the nature of that all it is not a decree therefore no appeal lies section 96 or section 100 will not happen is the dictum made dictum and decided it was held in paragraph 6 long very long paragraphs para 6 10 11 11 the principles are very lucidly stated here even though a formal order declaring the abatement is not necessary so it happens rule 3 2 and rule 4 3 says that on the expiry of the period specified no application is filed the suit will abate suit includes appeal will abate means it takes effect no apply no order is required for that and when abatement takes effect the necessary consequences will follow and an application can be filed by the party concern for making for inbreeding etc even though a formal order declaring the abatement is not necessary when the suit abates as the proceedings in the suit are likely to linger and will not be closed without a formal order of the court the court is usually to make an order recording that the suit has abated or dismisses the suit by reason of abatement under order 22 of the court several points are discussed a to f a to k a to g sorry several points are discussed one of the points is this a person claiming to be a legal representative cannot make an application under order my rule rule 92 of order 22 for setting aside the abatement or dismissal if he has already applied under order 22 rule 3 for being brought on record within time and his application had been dismissed after an inquiry under rule 5 of order rule 5 of order 22 says that the court shall decide the question who is the legal representative of the play team made an application under rule 3 but and after conservation of the matter under rule 5 the court is dismissed then he cannot make an application under rule 92 for setting aside the abatement rule 9 says that the abatement takes effect and when the suit abates the suit shall be dismissed but the the it says that it can be set aside this is what is rule 9 it says effect of abatement or dismissal and no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action that is the result whereas suit abate or a dismiss or a dismissal under this order then no fresh suit will die but the plaintiff or or the person claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased lady or the assailant etc can apply to set aside the abatement this is what is held now a question arose in this case whether somebody else can make an application it was held that the applicant in an application under order 22 rule 3 is not a party to the principles of state he is not a party who makes the application for including he is a legal representative he comes on record he makes the application when the that person is the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs the applicant in an application under order 22 rule 3 is not a party to the suit an application under order 22 rule 3 is by not party requesting the court to make him a party as a legal representative of the deceased lady necessarily unless the applicant in the application under rule 3 allowed is allowed and the applicant is permitted to come on record as the law of the deceased he will continue to be a non-party to the suit when such an application by a non-party is dismissed after a determination of the question whether he is a legal representative of the deceased lady there is no adjudication determining the rights of parties to suit with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy it is the determination of a collateral issue as to whether the applicant who is not a party should be permitted to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased therefore in order dismissing an application under rule 3 after an inquiry under rule 5 and consequently dismissing the suit is not a decree see the reasoning how beautiful that reason it takes a person who makes an application to include under order 22 rule 3 is a non-party and if his application is considered under rule 5 and it is dismissed he continues to be a non-party so it is not an adjudication of the rights of parties because he is not a party and therefore it is not a legal and therefore no appeal is what is the reason next is 2010 11 SCC 2010 11 SCC 4 7 6 Boutram and others versus Ben C and others BINSI Ben C and others where each one of the parties has a has an independent and distinct right of his own not interdependent upon one another one another nor the parties have conflicting interest intercede the appeal may await only cause the deceased respond where each party has an independent not interdependent upon the rights of one another nor the parties have conflicting interests then the awaitment takes effect it takes effect only as against the party who is dead not the other parties so the awaitment is as against him alone on the other hand if there are conflicting interests and if it is likely that conflicting degrees are likely to be passed then our joint rights then the setting the awaitment as a whole is what he said I could rightly reach to the conclusion that there was a possibility for the appellate court to reverse the judgment of the trial and in such an eventuality there could not there could have been two contradictory degrees one in favor of respondent number four and the other in favor of attack paragraph 19 and 20 in case there is a possibility that the court may pass a degree contradictory to the degree in favor of the deceased party the appeal would await in total for the simple reason that the appeal is a contingency of the suit and the law does not permit two contradictory degrees on the same subject so that is a test on the other hand if there is no contradictory chance of contradictory degree being passed the awaitment will take effect only as against the party who is dead next is 1997 5 SCC 192 parallel citation AAR 1998 Supreme Court 98 Supreme Court 277 Ram Sakal Singh Ram Sakal Singh versus Mosamath Monaco Devi Mosamath Monaco Devi now the legal representatives of the deceased party were already on record but the council committed a mistake he sought to delete the name of the deceased people I have seen such cases I have seen such cases when a party is dead applications are being made to delete his name it should not be done his name will be there and bracket it will be recorded dead l r simply or something like that but it will be indicated in the judgment that he was a party and he died during the pendency there be that is a proper procedure but here the council made a mistake and sought to believe the name of the dead party then the supreme court but the supreme council due to a mistaken perception instead of seeking transposition of legal representatives in place of deceased defend seeking deletion of the name of the deceased defend a mistake of council condone and existing dependent transpose as legal representative they were there on party array and it was necessary to have a transposition that was enough and indicate that this man who is on the upper end side is dead but instead of that name is deleted that was the next but the supreme court condone that mistake and did the correct thing to transpose next is a year 1997 supreme court 1334 neki versus satna sat sat narayan and others sat narayan and others a general power of attorney holder of the respondent died and the legal representatives were not substituted mere death of the agent does not cause any complete impediment in the way of disposal without these it is not the principal who is dead but the general power of atomic who is there he is only an agent and his death will not cause the wake we seen that since the proceedings were instituted by the gpa on the basis of the power given by the principal the matter is always to be adjudicated only by your own behalf the principal mere death of the agent does not cause any impediment in the way of disposal without his legal representative being brought out of court and given notice it is not necessary to implement the legal representatives of the general power of attorney because general power of power of attorney holder only represents his principal if the principal is dead his legal representatives should be included next is a year 1995 supreme court 1695 supreme court 1685 ram bhajan sing and others ram bhajan sing and others versus matheshwar sing and others there was a compromise in their titles second appeal was pending death of one of the parties representing one of the branches of the claimants other claimants already representing his estate what will happen then the theory of substantial representation applies the question then is whether the second appeal stands abated it is seen that different number 11 in the trial court is only one of the persons representing the branch of the different number 9 the other different are already representing the state of 11 so the state is represented the state of the deceased is represented it happens a person say for example a different a suit between two parties play different different and died he has got wife and five children and the plaintiff does not know who are all the children he made enquiries and he found out that he has the deceased has wife and widow and four children instead of five he implanted only four those four persons and the widow contested the appeal it is not a make-believe there is no fraud or collusion then a decree is passed then a decree was passed but strictly speaking one is out that one person is not implanted so strictly speaking the decree that is passed is not binding on him and when a decree is passed and then it is sought to be executed the other person who has not a party to go through who has not implanted said that the decree is not binding on him because he was not the question arises whether the decree would be binding on the person who is not implanted also because the state of the deceased is sufficiently represented substantially represented and if the court finds that this widow and four children found the litigation without any fraud or collusion or other understanding between the parties then the decree passed will be binding not only on the year normally parties not only on the parties on record but the party who was the person who was omitted to be but the court must be satisfied so a mere omission to employ one person one legal representative that will not always result in the dismissal of the matter or the dismissal of the whole thing the court if the state of the deceased is substantially represented then the court will not dismiss next is a year 1996 supreme court 702 702 nevanness nevanness n e w a n n e s s alias meva jannesah m e w a j a n e s s a versus Sheikh Mohammed and others and in that case the first defendant died in March 1999 steps were not taken to bring the legal documents until 95 though notice was given to the appellant in 1990 itself since it was held since the third defendant is already on record representing all the areas of the first defendant widow the question of abatement there's no evidence the state is represented already on record that is why last time i said a suit between a and b b dies b has got a suit between a b and a on the one side and b and c on the other b and c are suspended by b died be the first defendant died his widow is already on record and then they have got two children they have to be but when even after expiry of 90 days there will be no abatement because the widow his wife is already on record when one of the legal representatives is already on record there is no question of any abate it is a question of including and explaining how why it was belatedly made it is not a strictly speaking section 5 condonation of the it is not strictly speaking setting aside every because there is no way when one of the legal representatives or some of the legal representatives are already on the party area there is no question of any abatement next is 1995 one cc 407 retina alias retina valley retina valley versus syndicate bank and others preliminary decree was passed at the time when the application for passing the final decree is filed some of the parties were dead that is between the date of passing of the preliminary decree and the date of filing of the application for final decree somebody died question arose whether they can be made parties in the final decree application and whether it should be done within 90 days it was said that it is not necessary that they would be made parties within 90 days at any time the final decree application can be filed and at that time the legal representatives can be shown as parties in the final decree application at the time when the application for passing the final decree is filed it is enough if the legal representatives are included all or any of the legal representative or one of the l rs of the deceased defendant jetman attack to represent the state of the deceased if death of a defendant takes place pending passing in the final decree they may be brought on record under section 151 or order 12. During the pendency of the final decree application somebody died then these provisions will apply but after passing the preliminary decree and before filing the application for passing the final decree somebody died it is not necessary there is no particular time limit within which an application for passing the final decree in a partitions would can be filed preliminary decree is passed and final decree application can be filed at any time it is a not it is just a reminder to the court to pass a final decree and that application can be filed even after one year even after two years and the prescription of time under article 1 to be is over by that time which is not necessary to control the delay and those legal representatives can be straight away shown as parties in the final decree for a seven next is nineteen nine AER 1992 Supreme Court 431 92 Supreme Court 431 parties substitute as plaintiffs on the death of the original plaintiff had not amended the basis of the suit or asked reliefs asked for it could not be said that their post-faction was different now what happened in this case was present plaintiffs are claiming under the original plaintiff and are continuing the same suit they have not amended the basis of the suit or the reliefs asked for same suit they continue LRs were implanted but it was contented that that they are claiming under a will and therefore this is what he said the division bench considers that had the present plaintiffs been natural aides they would have been entitled to continue the suit but they say since the present plaintiffs are claiming on the basis of a deed of settlement that they will take around this suit this is a strange finding of the law with respect we are unable to understand this the present plaintiffs were indeed seeking to continue the suit as filed by the original plaintiff and the same reliefs as were claimed by her they were not claiming any other or different indeed the settlement and the will executed their favor weren't issuing the suit filed by the original plaintiff herself and the findings were recorded affirming both the deeds the right claimed by the original plaintiff was not a personal right it was a right to property which she settled upon and bequeathed to the present plaintiffs therefore the lower court dismissed the application holding that they are claiming under a deed of settlement and also under a will and therefore they cannot straight away continue the suit though they are not claiming anything extra or anything different but that was the wrong view taken by the lower court which was corrected next is a year 1983 supreme court 676 knows for abatement 676 mother night and others mother night and others versus musam at hansu baladevi hansu baladevi and others no specific order is required for abate once abatement takes effect it is automatically no specific order in the judgment which i cited justice are we revealed set for practical purposes it is necessary to close all the proceedings close all the applications and therefore a formal order before pass but that by itself will not make the order a decree that is what he said no specific order is envisaged abatement takes effect on its own force by precedent soon between a and b a is dead within 90 days as provided in article 1 to d the application should be filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff to come on record on their failure the abatement is automatic no specific order is required even if the court is unaware the abatement takes effect abatement of an appeal for want of substitution does not imply imply adjudication on merits not a decree next is a year 1980 supreme court 707 Sri krishna Singh versus madhura madhura ahir and others it was a question of a religious institution but the mahand instituted the suit the mahand died whether the suit will abate was the question it was held in paragraph 81 and 82 paragraph 81 and 82 according to hindu jurist products a religious institution such as a mutt is treated as a juristic entity with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property it therefore follows that the suit instituted by the mahand for the time being on its behalf is properly constituted and cannot abate under the provisions of order 32 all the quarters will procedure on the death of the mahand pending the decision of the suit or appeal as the real party to the suit is not the mahand but the institution the ownership is the institution or the idol from its very nature a mutt or an idol can act and assert its rights only through human agency known as mahand shabait or the dharma gartha or sometimes known as this so such a person dies does not result in abatement paragraph 22 a decision 1904 illa 28 bombay was relied on next is a year 1980 supreme court six court six court gujarat state transport corporation versus valji mulji valji mulji sony ji and others deceased correspondent was a manager of a joint hindu family business succeeding manager was sought to be he was sought to be implanted under order 22 as an s i d or by devolution or other thing after the expiry all the period of many days supplication was allowed succeeding kartha of the undivided family having been brought on record though not strictly in accordance with law but the supreme court although proper procedure was to apply under order 22 rule 4 yet technical objection against resort to order 22 rule 10 was not allowed in the supreme court appeal technicality should not be but though it was wrongly made under order 22 rule 10 which strictly does not apply but it was done and it was allowed the supreme court did not next is a year 1979 supreme court 1393 1393 the revenue division officer and land acquisition officer karnol i'm sorry appellant is jayram reddy and another jayram reddy and another versus the revenue division officer and land acquisition officer karnol cross appeals were there cross appeals are different from cross objection cross objection in the same appeal cross appeals by different parties against the same judgment a one party may file a may file an appeal b may file an appeal c may file appeal or cross appeals but not cross objections and what happens if the same party a is one of the parties in a cross appeal in an appeal and cross appeal in the cross appeal he is on the respondent side and his lr's are implanted either in the appeal or in the cross appeal that is enough is what is here cross appeals are preferred against a common decree or an award in those in the cross appeals and the parties are arrayed as rival positions one party as appellant dies and his legal representatives are brought on the call though those very legal representatives were not substituted in his place which he adopted as respondent the cross appeal cross appeal would not have been because this impeachment will endure to the cross appeal house that is a position cross objection there is an appeal and a memorandum of cross objection parties are same on either side it will be and therefore if one party dies and his legal representatives are implanted the appeal that adheres to the benefit of the memorandum cross objection as well paragraph 42 the discussion next is a year 1975 a year 1975 Supreme Court 371 so it was filed in a representative capacity under order 1 rule 8 death of one of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the second appeal whether the question was whether the appeal would abate it was held that the appeal would not abate there is some more decisions also on that point Charan Singh and another 75 Supreme Court 371 I cited name I forgot I did not mention Charan Singh and another versus Darshan Singh and others next is a year 1965 Supreme Court 1049 three judges Dayaram and others versus Shyam Sundari and others this is substantial representation abatement of suit or appeal implanted legal representatives sufficiently representing the state of the deceased some of the legal representative the deceased respond have not been brought on and the appellant is thus made aware of this default on his part the appellant should succeed in the appeal it would be necessary for him to bring on record these other legal representatives as well is slightly different substantial representation is there but when a party dies in the example which I have won a defendant has gone widow and five children only four children were implated it was pointed out and the appellant was made aware there is a fifth man then it is his duty to implement this is what the Supreme Court sent in paragraph 12 of this though the appeal has not abated because there is already employment of some of the ls if some of the ls or one of the ls is either implanted or they are already on the party area there will be no way even though somebody is omitted but it was pointed out that somebody was omitted then it is a duty of the appellant to complete this is what he said though the appeal has not abated when once it is brought to the notice of the court hearing the appeal that some of the legal representatives the deceased respond and have not been brought on record and the appellant is thus made aware of the default on his part it would be his duty to bring these others on record so that the appeal it could be properly constituted in other words if the appellant should succeed the appeal it would be necessary for him to bring on record these other representatives who he has omitted to employ this is duty it is not an escape it is when it is omitted nobody pointed out he was not aware then a decree is passed without that man but the estate is substantially represented the decree will be binding on those that person who was omitted to be but then there is a it is a different thing to say that it was pointed out that so and so is omitted then in order to succeed the appeal the appellant has to make him also a part next is a year 1963 supreme court 1901 pre-judges rameshwar prasad and others versus shambhihari lord shambhihari lord shambhihari lord jagannad and other shambhihari lord jagannad and other where number of persons have filed an appeal pending appeal one of the appellant dies whether it can be said that they survive all of them together filed one person died the condition is that others are present even if the lrs are not included of the deceased party that was negative by the supreme court where it was held where a number of persons have filed an appeal and pending the appeal one of the appellant dies the surviving appellants cannot be said to have filed the appeals as representing the deceased appellant appellant deceased the the appeal had abated and the decreed favor of the respondent had took a final against the legal representatives those not having been brought out record in time it will be against the scheme of the court to hold that rule 4 of order 41 empowers the court to pass a decree in favor of the legal representative of the deceased appellant rule 4 of order 41 says that when with the several parties on the party two for one person files an appeal there are five defendants one suit is decreed first defendant file in that appeal if the first defendant succeeds all other defendants also succeed and therefore the decree can be reversed in favor of those defendants as well who are shown as respondents in the appeal so one of the defendants figured as an appellant and other defendants are shown as respondents the appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the trial court is satisfied that benefit will go to the other defendants as well that is rule 4 likewise appellants it happens and the question was whether that is a substitute and whether therefore non-include even after not including a party a legal representative whether that rule 4 of order 41 can be invoked to pass a decree that was the condemnation how now when the condemnation was and it was held there is no inconsistency between the provisions of rule 9 of order 41 and those of rule 4 of order 41 cpc rule 4 of order 41 does not override rule 9 of order 42 see this is the only decision which I saw on that point only decision which I saw please not rule 4 of order 41 does not override rule 9 of order 41 in this judgment three judges 63 Supreme Court I cited 63 Supreme Court 1901 scope of rule 33 in such circumstances of order 41 order 41 rule 33 impoverish the court to pass a decree in favor of a party who is a respondent who has not filed appeal also in certain circumstances to avoid conflicting decisions which is a discretion which is to be exercised by the court even though a party has not filed in appeal and even though he has not challenged the decree can be reversed in his favor also provided it is necessary to give relief to the opponent otherwise there will be conflicting difference so these are all areas coming under rule 33 of order 41 in this particular case that was also invoked Supreme Court said no rule 33 cannot be discretionary power cannot be exercised from nullify the effect of awakening of appeal order 41 rule 33 cannot be invoked to nullify the effect of agreement so we have seen order 22 rule 9 on the one hand and rule 4 of order 41 and rule 33 of order 41 on the other this is the only decision on that point please note sometimes it may be required in certain strange situations next is A.R. 1964 Supreme Court 234 versus Ganesh death of one of the Elini respondent legal representatives were not brought on the call delay was the question was whether abatement takes effect or whether the other Elinis represent the dead man also Supreme Court held in paragraph 35 we are of opinion that the interest of the various defendants who are in possession of various properties are independent and therefore the whole of the appeal cannot abate because the heirs of certain disease dependent possession of one property have not been brought on so one party dies his sellers were not brought on record that is not sufficient that it cannot be said that there is no abatement because the other Elinis are on record it is true but the question is whether the appeal will abate as a whole the answer is no why because it is not interdependent it is not joined their rights of Elinis are with respect to separate items of properties and they are quite different though they are all Elinis under the same price therefore death of one of the Elinis two things are there these ellers were not implanted presence of other Elinis will not cure the defect of non-employment of one of the Elinis one two the appeal will not abate as against all Elinis because this Elinis right is separate divisible separable and therefore the abatement takes effect only as against one of the Elinis who is dead next is a 1964 Supreme Court 215 here also three judges union of India versus Ram Charan question was whether the power under section 151 inherent power of the court under 151 can be invoked for the purpose of implicating the legal representatives of the deceased respond if the suit has already abated on account of not taking appropriate steps it is a well-settled principle that when there is a specific provision in the CPC to deal with a particular subject section 151 cannot be invoked 151 it is inherent it is not a specific power it is by the very constitution of the court it is inherent that the court has a power to prevent the ends of justice being defeated or to secure the ends of justice and to avoid injustice that is built in power that power is a reserve power when there is a specific provision otherwise 151 cannot be invoked to override it to overreach it so here abatement takes effect under order 22 that cannot be overreached by invoking section 151 this is what he said another point decided in the very same case whether we have seen under article 120 the period of penetration is 90 years again 121 it is 60 days to set aside abatement the question was whether the period starts from the death of the death of the party or respondent or the date of death of date of knowledge of the death was the question type computation of time it was held it does not provide the limitation to start from the date of appellance knowledge it is the date of death under article 120 and 12 it is not the knowledge of course knowledge is relevant not not being known or not having that knowledge is relevant for the purpose of controlling the delay but that does not mean the time will not stop until the appellant knows that is wrong so there is a difference suppose the appellant is not aware of the death of the respondent 90 days over 60 days over again one year is over still he can make an application for including setting aside abatement and condonation of delay of one year and if the court is satisfied see for example the appellant is in kerala or in panjama the respondent sole respondent is in uganda or in germany the appellant is not aware of the death of the respondent so one year to it took one year to know that we can make appellant can make an application to condone delay to set aside abatement and twinkling but section one section 151 cannot be invoked to overreach it proper procedure has to be pulled date of knowledge is not the moment it is the date of the lack of knowledge is a ground to condone but lack of knowledge is not a ground to say that the limitation has not begun to work that is a restriction next is a year 1963 super encore 553 five judges constitution bench ram siru versus munshi several points were discussed one of the points is this is a constitution bench decision one of the points discussed in paragraph four decree in a preemption suit appeal from one of the appellants type appeal from that decree one of the appellants type pending appeal these legal representatives were not as the decree was a joint one and a part of the decree had become final by reason of abatement the entire appeal must be held to abate inseparable joint decree preemption one of the dependent acts lr is not brought the abatement takes effect as a whole so this is a constitution bench decision therefore we need not serve for any other jet to have this principle a year 1962 super encore 89 state of panja versus not to ram it was an acquisition of land jointly owned by two brothers award of compensation jointly in favor of both the state government appealed against the award to the high court during the pendency of the appeal one brother died his legal representatives were not brought out of court the appeal abated as against it was held that the appeal cannot be pursued against another person another and therefore the appeal is not maintained joint decree jointly owned by two brothers award of compensation jointly appeal filed by the state against these two persons one person died these lrs were not included the appeal is not maintainable as against the other party without completing the laws next is a year 1958 supreme court 58 supreme court 1042 kak kakumano kakumano peda subhaya and another versus kakumano akkama and other the maximum active personalities more at all come personal that is a personal right personal it is available for person and therefore on this step this is the principle a suit is filed for deformation for compensation for deformation a file is suit against b a is the plaintiff a says that he was detained by the a claims compensation during the pendency of the suit a dice the suit of the a because it is a personal action the case dies with the diet death of the party on the other hand the suit is decreed and the different files in appeal during the pendency of the appeal the respondent plaintiff died same person died but during the pendency the appeal by the other side there will be no way rule 1 of 122 says that if the cost of action if the the right of action survives in a suit for compensation for deformation if the death takes place during the pendency of the suit it abates because the cost of action does not survive the right of action does not survive that is abate the death of the plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives the right to sue does not survive on the death of it plaintiff during the pendency there is one case of the supreme court which I will cite shortly a suit was filed for compensation it was decreed appeal then second appeal second appeal it was a suit was ordinarily displaced by the file then appeal confirmed then second appeal it was decreed you know it is other way about you will come to that decision second appeal it was decreed then matter of pending before the supreme court the question was whether there will be any I will cite that it arose from Kaira a suit for compensation for deformation next is a year 1958 supreme court 1042 1042 that is a decision which I cited earlier this maxim was considered paragraph 2 key it was urged that the cost of action for a suit for partition by a minor was one of personal to him see the argument of the courts a minor plaintiff was there it was a suit for partition the matter is reached up to supreme court it is said that this minor died during the pendency of the suit it is a personal action just like a suit for compensation for the deformation and therefore the suit awaits is the contention see of course that contention is not acceptable but see the see the way in which contensions are put forward and the points are decided it was urged that the cost of action for a suit for partition by a minor was one of personal to him and on his death before hearing the suit must await on the principle of the maxim active person is more toward comparison but that maxim has application only when the action is one of the damages for a personal wrong and as a suit for partition is a suit for property the rule in question has no application that was a view taken in ILR 57 Madras that is AER 1933 Madras and other decisions are not good except so this contention is put forward not only before the suit record but various high courts next is 2010 to SCC 2010 to SCC 264 parallel citation AER 2010 Supreme Court 330 Ashok Kumar versus Vedh Prakash and others it was a question under the Rencantrol Act in almost all the states in Rencantrol legislations have separated and I am sure that there will be a ground for own occupation different considerations prevail in respect of each state but own occupation will end or is member of his family etc and often this question arises the landlord says that I want the building to be vacated I want or I want to occupy that building or I want to do this particular business during the dependency of the application the landlord does question is whether the application itself goes and in very many cases the Supreme Court also said that it goes but when in a particular case the landlord says in some of the legislations it is not only for the purpose of the landlord but for a member of the family dependent on that is also a ground the landlord says in the application I want to get vacant possession of this building occupied by the debt because my son wants to who is a dependent on wants to conduct the business and then this landlord dies it will not await because the requirement sought for is for the son son is alive and therefore the case will not go this is what is held on the death of the landlord during the dependency of the civil crusades LRs were substituted original landlord categorically pleaded that paragraph 26 looking at the governments made in the eviction petition where the original landlord has categorically pleaded that the requirement was that of his son who presently is a landlord because the death of the original plenty the question of abatement of the eviction proceedings cannot arise at all next is AER 1997 Supreme Court 35 that is 1997 11 SCC 159 11 SCC 159 YA LLA WWA versus Shantabwa Shantabwa order man rule 13 and order 22 rule 1 a decree for divorce expatriate divorce decree was obtained against the wife husband died there whether the wife has got a right to file the appeal is the question wife has a right to file an appeal at such appeal does not await on account of the death of the respondent aspect whether such death takes place prior to the filing of the appeal or pending death other legal representative the deceased aspect can be brought on record as opponents or respondents in such proceedings detailed discussion in paragraphs 7 very detailed this may be relevant because sometimes it happens some of the cases it happens strangely enough we have seen cases where old couple after completion of 30 years 40 years of marriage implications are being filed for life is not young people who may file strangely they may file paragraph 7 very detailed discussion runs to 4 3 pages 3 pages next is 2010 SCC 2010 SCC 644 gram panchayat of village manthal kurud MUNDHAL manthal kurud HURB versus MRC so file in a representative capacity death of one of the plaintiffs the question was whether there will be a wait it was held no there will be no wait paragraph 4 next is AER 1988 spring code 1988 Supreme Court by Syrosis Virappa versus I will say the spelling E-E-V-E-L-Y-N Evelyn next word SC2U-E-I-R-A SC2U-E-I-R-A SICRA maximum active personnel that was considered damages for personal injuries sustained by see what was held is that has been applied this maximum has been applied not only to those cases where a plaintiff dies during the penance if a suit file by him for damages for personal injuries but also to cases where the plaintiff dies during the penance if an appeal to the apparent be it first apparent court or second operating against the dismissal of the suit suppose a file a suit against me a claim to the diamonds this suit was dismissed if I'll appeal that appeal was dismissed if I'll a second appeal during the penance you'll second appeal he dies then also the whole suit will go because the right to suit does not survive on the other hand if it decrease fast and the defendant files an appeal during the penance it appeal the plaintiff dies that will not await because await under room one because the action survives if the entire suit claim is founded on thoughts the suit would undoubtedly abate the suit claim is founded entirely on contract then the suit has to proceed to try in its entirety and be adjudicated upon paragraph 15.15 next is AER 1986 supraicope 411 male prakta shankunni adhitashe male prakta shankunni adhitashe versus tekitil kovalan kutinayar tekitil kovalan kutinayar defamation does not survive the death of the apparent his legal representative has no right to be brought out or caught in his place next is AER 1984 supraicope 1381 upper India cable company and others upper India cable company and others versus Balakrishan in a suit for eviction a firm was implanted as a tenant and its partners were implanted nearly as proper partners no relief of any kind was prayed for against them in their personal capacity and there was a death of one of the partners his legal personal legal representatives were not brought out neither have joined the firm nor they are entitled to be taken as partners that was the point considered the person who died was one of the partners true but his legal representatives were not to be taken as partners that there was no such condition and therefore there was no appeal would not appeal and the partnership firm was there the other partners were there and therefore the appeal would not appeal it is the finding AER 1968 supraicope 1968 supraicope 1205 decree in a preemption suit order 20 rule 14 order 20 rule 14 of ctc says that the deposit is the type when you read order 20 rule 40 it should be seen that the deposit is the deposit of a preemption suit there is a already an alienation and that alienation will be directed to give it back to the preemptor but the preemptor has to deposit the amount either when he finds the suit or a date fixed by the order so the preemption decree was the deposit of the decree amount in amount by the preemptor in compliance with the order preemptor acquires title from the date of such deposit the deposit is not made the suit will be dismissed but he died he died after he made the deposit and therefore the suit will not abate his legal representatives can continue the action 2016 12 cc 534 534 pinup chandra boy chandra boy versus kandalwal vipra kandala kandalwal vipra vidyalaya samidhi and others that was order 22 rule 9 here after i recite a few decisions under order 22 rule 10 sorry rule 10 rule 10 says a devolution of interest procedure in the case of assignment with your final order in the case of assignment creation of devolution of an interest during the pendency of a suit the suit may by leave of the court be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has evolved this is the provision now several such questions arose say the number of decisions of supreme court which i cite itself will show that various situations arose where this portion was brought a year 2015 2000 that is the decision which i sorry the decision which i cited was 2016 12 cc 534 name of the case chandra boy grand of leave under order 22 rule 10 or continue the suit by or against the person on whom the interest has evolved by assignment of evolution scope of judicial discretion was the question what was the nature of the inquiry to be connected it is not necessary to make a detailed inquiry at the stage of granting leave leave the court is required what is the nature of inquiry before granting no detailed enquiries required court and that point of time has to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting the question about the existence and validity of the assignment of or devolution can be considered at the final year so at the time when leave is sought by an assignee or a person on whom the rights have evolved according to the court prima facie has to say that such a thing is there and when there is a dispute it has to be decided to solve later the suit after detailed inquiry next is a year 2015 supreme court 2967 kripal cow kripal cow versus jitendra paatsi and others again order 22 rule 10 it was hell that only leave can be applied for by the person on whom the right is devolved or the alien himself a stranger cannot do it or another person party cannot do it i will leave can be obtained only by that person upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit otherwise there may be preposterous results as such a party might be unaware of the pending litigation and the same would not be consequently feasible without his knowledge application can be whether how is it possible whether his affidavit is required somebody else's affidavit is required all those things it happens sometimes fraud happens therefore it is on his name the application some other person cannot so he is an affidavit is required he has to find somebody else cannot file the affidavit and get him otherwise without his knowledge the whole thing we can be decided against him such thing may happen 2013 15 2013 volume 15 sec 2013 volume 15 sec 217 avk trade versus kerala state civil supplies corporation registered partnership firm consisting of two partners suit was filed by the firm during the pendency of the suit one partner dies legal hair has no interest in the flow of the deceased partner on the death of one of the partner there has been a complete devolution of interest in favor of the other partner there may be sometimes the partnership deal may provide after that death of one of the partners is jail representatives may get right but otherwise this is the position two persons the other partner will get the right therefore there is no abatement is what he is held by navik traders case by the supreme court next is a year 2013 supreme court 2013 supreme court 2389 thomsen press india limited versus nannak builders order 22 rule 10 independent of order 1 rule 10 court can add transferring pendency as party defender even if the application for employment is made only under order 1 rule 10 order 1 rule 10 application was made but the court invoked at this portion bulletin next is 2006 one acc 148 a year a year 2006 supreme court 151 151 amte sure anand versus virendra mohan see though the asine is at liberty to apply he is not bound he is not bound to apply he can believe the asina who is living during the pendency of a suit and assignment takes one of the parties assigned the property to a straight assigning may apply and get leave that is a different thing he is not bound to do it and when a decree is passed it is binding on him even though he is made a party or even though he is not made a party or it may happen a files a suit against b during the pendency of the suit b transfers the property to c is it necessary for a to include c it is not necessary c transfers to d d transfers to e is a require bound to include all these firsts to make the degree executable not necessary because during the pendency of the suit if b transfers the property the dependent transfers the property to one person we again transfer all these transferies are bound by the decision list pendants section 52 of the transfer property even without impleding them but they may come with the leave of the court under order 22 root and take it in bleed next is 2005 11 scc 430 403 403 a year decision a year 2005 supra code 2209 no detailed inquiry at the stage of granting t next is 2005 1 scc 536 2005 1 scc 536 cladings taken by successors in interest cannot be inconsistent with those taken by the British says they cannot take any current connection or 22 over 10 paranoid normally a case covered by order 22 over 9 where rights are derived by an assay or successor interest petty litigation is for that assay or transfer it to come on record if it so chooses and to defend the suit it is equally open to the assay to trust its assay not to defend the suit property but with the consequence that any decree against the assay not will be binding on it and will be enforceable against it equally in terms of section 146 of the photos will procedure a proceeding could be taken against any person claiming under the defendant or the gentleman even after transfer the transfer can protect the interest of the transferring and it is not necessary to bring the transfer you on record because it is even otherwise binding on it and transferring need not come on record he can trust his transfer he can believe that his transfer will take care of his interest 2004 2 scc 2004 2 scc 601 raj kumar versus sardari lal and others full 10 discretion of the court to grand leave bringing a dispendency transfer on record is not as of right but in the discretion of the court but though not brought on record the lispendence transfer remains bound by the detail which is passed in his absence 2002 5 scc 2002 5 scc 647 sage shah i am sorry just kirt dattu adi just kirt dattu adi versus vidyavadi sale during the pendency of the suit transfer will be bound by the decree particularly when he had knowledge of the proceedings paragraph 5 the principle has been stated it is held that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party the subject matter of the suit is devolved upon another during the pendency it is held that such a suit may be continued with the leave of the court by or against the person upon whom the interest has devolved but if no such step is taken the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has evolved will be bound by the decree it is not necessary that always whenever a party transfers he is a transfer he should be brought up upon 1996 scc 5 0 5 0 a e r parallel citation a e r 1996 supercode 135 there was a restrained order injunction order restraining one of the parties from alienating contrary to that direction it was alienated then the question of implicating him around the rules court has a duty as a writer to create the alienation as having not taken place at all because it is in variation of the court order as any circumstances cannot claim to be pleaded as part this is 95 6 scc 5 0 surjit singh and others i forgot to mention the name surjit singh and others versus harbin singh and others next is a year 1975 supreme court 2159 rikkudev versus somdas order 22 old ten is based on the principle that the trial of the suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of the party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the pendency of suit but the suit may be continued against the person acquiring interest but discussion paragraph 8 next is 2019 2019 6 scc 756 a e r citation a e r 2019 supreme court 32 97 m r and d and others versus rama chandra yalla pa osmani and others order 23 rule 32 rule 11 order 41 rule 33 etc considered detailed discussion paragraph 18 21 and 22 mere fact that the apparent was permitted to prosecute the appeal by an interlocutor order would not be sufficient to tide over the legal obstacle posed by inconsistent decree which emerges as a result of the failure to substitute the interlocutor inconsistent decrees there will be a wait as they go a year 2008 supreme court 2866 several points are discussed several points by justice rb revindred judgment was rendered on merits without including a loss the judgment is decreased null and more one of the points decided a legality under the will who intends to represent the state of the deceased is an inter meddler with a state of the deceased and therefore he will be a legal representative the definition of legal representative means who inter meddles with the state of the deceased is also included so a a a a a a a a a device e a legality under a will is an inter meddler who in law legal representative is defined who in law represents the deceased and it includes an inter meddler next is a year 1986 supreme court 411 86 supreme court 4 varam 1 mere prath sangh gujni elthasam mere prath sangh gujni elthasam versus tekkil govalam guttinaya i think i cited this judgment but i did not uh defamation does not survive the death of the apple his legal representative has no right he's the case which i refer to and said appellant file the suit against the respondent claiming as some as damages trial court dismissed the suit district judge allowed the appeal and passed a decree by court reversely and the result was the suit was dismissed when the matter was pending before this question arose whether on the death legal representatives can be pleaded this is a personal action and therefore the supreme court said till now no decree is obtained it is only a suit is only a claim and therefore these laws cannot be implemented cannot come to this suit is what he said next is ramagya prasad gupta a a year 1972 supreme court 72 supreme court 1181 72 supreme court 1181 ramagya prasad gupta versus murli prasad dissolution of partnership death of one of the respondent appeal awaited her at 24 next is a year 1965 supreme court 1794 1794 rengu by kom shankar kom shankar kol versus sundar by brathar shekha ram and others suit for possession and mean promise preliminary appeal death of one of the respondents legal representatives were substituted in the final degree proceedings but not in the appeal appeal against the preliminary decree final degree proceedings are going on party died these lrs were employed in the final degree proceedings but not in the question was whether the the employment in the final degree proceedings will apply to the appeal also there is no return back principle of substitution of at one stage in the zone ensuring ignoring to the subsequent stages that will not apply appeal would await so in the case of cross appeals we saw an appeal is pending one of the parties dies lrs are in the matter is remanded after the month remanded to the trial court after the month no blade fresh in blade mint is required in the trial court because the agreement the appeal will ignore the benefit in the trial court as well so also number on the cross objection either included in the appeal or number on the cross objection it annuers to the benefit but in leading in the trial court in final degree proceedings will not apply to employment as parties in the appeal against the preliminary decree that is a principle a year 1965 spring quote 1531 union of india versus ram dhora and others joined an indivisible decree one two plaintiffs joined an indivisible one plaintiff dying lrs not included food against them awaits next is a year 1962 supreme court 62 supreme court 89 state of panjab versus natura abatement of appeal as against the response accusation of land jointly on i think i have this is a repetition i have already said next is a year 1998 supreme court 1168 v uterapathi versus ashram bali ashram bali indivis this i mentioned last time comes under rule 12 what happens during the execution proceedings one of the parties dies whether it is necessary to implement a decree holder they say execution proceedings pending another party's dies that is a decree holder dies lrs were not brought on to call what happens there is no wait man because another execution petition can be filed within time any number of execution petitions can be filed only thing is that it must be within the period of execution that is a point decided in a year 98 supreme court 1168 now i will cite one decision there are several decisions of the kerala he called i would not venture to cite all these decisions because of and of time because of lack of time but one two decisions i would draw back to the one one is one decision i would like to 2007 one i l r i l r 2007 one kerala five five zero name of the case is shankaran and others versus devag yamma it was decided by me there is no speciality in it but why i cited this judgment is that even after reading all the suffering all the advance which i cited you will not get an idea as to computation of the period of liberation and very often parties and advocates make mistakes in that is why i put the question a file says who takes b a dies lrs were brought on record on the 200th day of the death application was made what is the extent of today correct answer keep 50 days because after 90 days the suit will await then another 60 days to set aside the right if that 150 days is over are over then delay starts is a computation of the period of limitation this decision clearly says so see that judgment para seven para seven and parallel there are several other decisions of various icons including kerala icons there are several even when i compiled all these things i saw that there are five or six decisions by itself under order 22 all those things are not necessary therefore with that we close i'm sorry i crossed the time six is the time six 15 because i wanted to complete it without leaving anything i'm sorry i exceeded time already sure as long as people are understanding this is sir if no judge is posted in lower munsel court canon injunction suit we moved in the higher court okay no this is not with the now what is the question he says let's assume when the munsel court the trial judge is not sitting then he says can you move an application before the height before the applet court without approaching yet he's not sitting maybe he's not posted because at least out in Punjab there's no such place where the judges there's a shortage of judge and he's not there will be somebody in charge if in a particular jurisdiction there is no munsib that charge will be given to somebody else there will be no vacuum petitioner initiated the eviction proceedings before the competent authority under the public premises act against the respondent during the proceedings pending the respondent died there after the application was filed to bring the lr's on record and also filed an application for condemnation and delay since there was around 800 days of delay and also filed an application for setting aside the abatement the same was opposed by the respondent but the application was allowed by the competent authority question is whether the competent authority is a court if the competent authority is not functioning as a court it does not satisfy the trappings of a court then limitation act will not apply section five and on one unless the special statute provides a power to that authority to control delay this we have seen under section 29 2 of the limitation act 29 2 says that were they limitation act provides for a period of limitation and a special statute provides for another period of limitation that will prevail and section 4 to 24 will apply to the extent to which they are not specifically excluded that applies to courts that is not mentioned in the limitation act that is only second by legal process so limitation act applies to courts and not to tribunals or quasi judicial authorities so the theory is that if it is a court you need not mention anything about the power of the court to control delay because section five is automatically applicable but if it is an authority or a quasi judicial authority or administrative authority the power under the limitation act or the specific provisions of the limitation act must be applicable will be applicable only to the extent it is provided even government if it is government is an authority it does not have the power to control delay unless that special statute under the government under which the government exercises the power and puts that so it is to be concerned whether the competent authority satisfy the definition of the court and so what is public permission is concerned around two years the latest Supreme Court had come that it will not have or entire trappings of the court Supreme Court said it has no power that is the reason this is the reason 29 2 section five limitation act applies to courts and not to tribunals that is MP still case Roenton and Martin detailed the arrangement and even otherwise even in the arbitration 90 plus 30 then section five will not apply special statute will prevail over the general law report of the sole plaintiff death by defendant law steps were taken after one year and application was filed under order 1 to 10 surplus to by law is it maintainable without making an application for setting aside the payment no that is one Supreme Court judgment which I cited order 1 to 10 the power is there one specific cruise is there you cannot circumvent it you cannot overreach it and go under order 1 bill thank you sir the two sessions were fantastic and those who have missed the first session they can always connect on the youtube of your law clc to have the insights of the first session on this awaited part as to how just a sun current in its usual style has been covered the length and breadth of the session and I hope that those who have missed it and connect with that and enjoy the knowledge thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed thank you