Skip to content


Jawahir Lal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Limitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1914)ILR36All235
AppellantJawahir Lal
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1908 (indian limitation act), section 5 - civil procedure code (1908), order xxii, rules 4 and 9--limitation-parties--application for substitution of names filed beyond time--procedure. - - the rule distinctly provides, in sub-rule (3), that where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant in the case of an appeal the word 'appeal 'should read for 'suit' and 'respondent 'for 'defendant. he may, after the order of abatement his been passed, apply to have it set aside on the ground that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit or appeal, as the case may be, and this rule clearly makes section 5 of the limitation act applicable to it......legal representatives of the deceased respondent. the application was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such an application. a learned judge of this court has referred the application to us for disposal, he being of opinion that under order xxii, rule 4 no application can be entertained unless ft is filed, within the period of limitation allowed by the limitation act, that is to say, within six months from the date of the decease of the respondent. we agree with the view taken by our learned colleague. the law seems to have been altered in this respect in the present code of civil procedure. by section 5 of the limitation act, that section can apply only to eases to which, besides the eases mentioned in the section itself, it is made applicable by any other.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J

1. This is an application under Order XXIT, Rule 4, of the Coda of Civil Procedure to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The application was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such an application. A learned Judge of this Court has referred the application to us for disposal, he being of opinion that under Order XXII, Rule 4 no application can be entertained unless ft is filed, within the period of limitation allowed by the Limitation Act, that is to say, within six months from the date of the decease of the respondent. We agree with the view taken by our learned colleague. The law seems to have been altered in this respect in the present Code of Civil Procedure. By Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that section can apply only to eases to which, besides the eases mentioned in the section itself, it is made applicable by any other provision of law. That section is not made applicable to an application under Rule 4 of order XXII. The rule distinctly provides, in sub-rule (3), that where within the time limited by law no application is made under Sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant In the case of an appeal the word ' appeal ' should read for ' suit' and ' respondent ' for ' defendant.' Therefore, as the law now stands, since no application was made under Sub-rule (1) within the time allowed by law, the appeal must abate. The remedy of the person who could not make his application within the time allowed by the law of limitation is that provided by Rule 9 of the order. He may, after the order of abatement his been passed, apply to have it set aside on the ground that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit or appeal, as the case may be, and this rule clearly makes Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to it. We are of opinion that the application to bring the heirs of the respondent on the record cannot be entertained, having been made beyond the period of limitation prescribed for such an application. We accordingly reject it with costs.

2. The appeal was then taken up and the following judgment was delivered.

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

3. As no application was made in this case to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent within the six months prescribed by the Limitation Act this appeal has abated. We accordingly declare that the appeal has abated. This order is made without prejudice to any application which the appellant may be advised to make under order XXII, Rule 9, of the Code.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //