Impleading Legal Representatives: Supreme Court Clarifies Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Applicability in Cases of Pre-Suit Death (2017)

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 879
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a suit against a dead person be rectified by adding their legal heirs later? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning a property dispute where one of the defendants had passed away before the suit was even filed. The Court clarified the circumstances under which legal representatives can be added to a suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), especially when an earlier application under Order 22 Rule 4 was dismissed. This judgment, authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, clarifies the procedural aspects of impleading parties in civil suits.

Case Background

The appellant, Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia, filed a suit on June 24, 2008, to invalidate a sale deed from March 1995. The sale deed concerned a parcel of land purchased by defendant no. 7. However, defendant no. 7 had already passed away by the time the suit was filed. Upon receiving a report from the process server confirming the death, the trial court ordered on March 31, 2009, that the suit had abated against defendant no. 7. Initially, the appellant applied under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 7 on record.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially rejected the appellant’s application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC, stating that this provision only applies when a party dies during the pendency of a suit, not before it is filed. The court also noted that a suit against a dead person is a nullity. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the legal representatives of defendant no. 7. This application was also dismissed by the trial court and was affirmed by the Gujarat High Court. The High Court agreed with the trial court that the second application was not maintainable since the first application under Order 22 Rule 4 was dismissed.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically:

• Order 1 Rule 10: This provision allows the court to add or strike out parties at any stage of the proceedings. It states:
  
  “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”
• Order 22 Rule 4: This rule deals with the procedure in case of the death of one of several defendants or of a sole defendant.
• Section 151: This section preserves the inherent powers of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.
• Section 153: This section grants the court general power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit.
• Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This section deals with the effect of substituting or adding a new plaintiff or defendant.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC should not have been dismissed based on res judicata, as the earlier application under Order 22 Rule 4 was rejected due to non-maintainability, not on merits.
• The appellant accepted the trial court’s decision on the Order 22 Rule 4 application, acknowledging that it was not applicable since the defendant died before the suit was filed.
• The appellant contended that Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was the correct provision to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendant.
• The appellant stated that the failure to include the legal representatives at the time of filing the suit was a bona fide mistake due to a lack of knowledge about the defendant’s death.
• The appellant argued that the legal representatives were necessary parties for the suit to be effectively adjudicated, and their impleadment would not prejudice anyone.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the trial court and High Court were correct in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, as a similar application under Order 22 Rule 4 had already been dismissed.
• The respondents contended that since the earlier order under Order 22 Rule 4 was not challenged, it had attained finality and barred the subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
• The respondents relied on several judgments to support their argument that a second application for the same relief under a different provision is not maintainable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Can the legal representatives of a defendant who died before the suit was filed be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, especially when an earlier application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC was dismissed as not maintainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court distinguished the cases of Ram Prasad Dagduram vs Vijay Kumar Motilal Mirakhanwala & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 278, Madhukar Ramachandra Keni vs Vasant Jagannath Patil & Ors., 2013 (4) Mh. L. J. 403, Jayalaxmi Janardhan Walawalkar & Ors. vs Lilachand Laxmichand Kapasi & Ors., 1998 (3) Mh. L. J. 618, and Arora Enterprises Ltd. vs Indubhushan Obhan 1997 (5) SCC 366, noting that these cases dealt with situations where the death occurred during the pendency of the suit, or the finality of an abatement order. The Court relied on Bhagwan Swaroop and Ors. vs Mool Chand and Ors., 1983 (2) SCC 132, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425, Kalipar Das v. Bimal Krishna Sen (1983) 1 SCC 14, Karuppaswamy and Ors. vs C. Ramamurthy, 1993 (4) SCC 41, and Banwari Lal vs Balbir Singh, 2016 (1) SCC 607 to support the view that procedural laws should advance justice and that technicalities should not impede the same.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the primary goal of the legal system is to deliver justice, and procedural rules should not be used to obstruct this goal. The Court noted that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant were necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the suit. The Court also took into consideration that the plaintiff’s failure to include the legal representatives initially was due to a lack of knowledge about the defendant’s death, which was a bona fide mistake. The Court also highlighted that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 was rightly dismissed by the trial court, as the defendant had died prior to the institution of the suit. The Court observed that the trial court could have converted the application under Order 22 Rule 4 to one under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application should not prohibit a party from getting justice.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 was rightly dismissed by the trial court, as the defendant had died prior to the institution of the suit. The Court observed that the trial court could have converted the application under Order 22 Rule 4 to one under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, as the court is meant to do justice. The Court emphasized that a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application should not prohibit a party from getting justice. The Court also noted that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant were necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the suit. The Court also took into consideration that the plaintiff’s failure to include the legal representatives initially was due to a lack of knowledge about the defendant’s death, which was a bona fide mistake. The Court held that the legal representatives of the deceased person can be added in the array of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code read with Section 151 of the Code subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, to be decided during the course of trial.

The Court quoted from the case of Bhagwan Swaroop and Ors. vs Mool Chand and Ors., 1983 (2) SCC 132, stating, “the laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice and not impeding the same.” It also quoted from Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (AIR 1955 SC 425), observing that “a code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up.”

The Court further stated, “Ultimately, the Courts are meant to do justice and not to decide the applications based on technicalities.”

Key Takeaways

• Legal representatives of a defendant who died before the suit was filed can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
• An application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC is not maintainable if the defendant died before the suit was filed.
• Dismissal of an application under Order 22 Rule 4 does not bar a subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
• Courts have the power to add necessary parties at any stage of the proceedings to ensure effective adjudication.
• Procedural laws should be interpreted to advance justice, and technicalities should not impede the delivery of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the Trial Court to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 7, subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code, as well as under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be decided during the trial.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the legal representatives of a defendant who died before the suit was filed can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, and that the dismissal of an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC does not bar a subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. This clarifies the position of law regarding impleadment of parties in cases where a defendant has died before the institution of the suit.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarifies the correct procedure for impleading legal representatives when a defendant dies before a suit is filed. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all necessary parties are included in a suit to allow for effective adjudication. The Court has reiterated that procedural laws should be interpreted to advance justice, and technicalities should not be used to deny justice. This judgment provides important guidance for civil courts and litigants in similar situations.