- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Babu Sukhram Singh v. Ram Dular Singh And Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arose from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff seeking multiple reliefs against 39 defendants concerning alleged construction and alterations on land described as Item (B) in the plaint. The plaintiff sought (i) a permanent injunction directing the defendants to demolish the disputed construction within a court-fixed time, (ii) directions to fill pits and nalahs on the same land (with an alternative request that the work be done through the Court Amin at the defendants' cost), (iii) possession of the disputed lands, (iv) damages of Rs. 1000 against all defendants, and (v) costs.
The trial court dismissed the suit in its entirety. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in part against all defendants. On further appeal, the High Court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then appealed against the High Court's judgment.
During the pendency of the plaintiff's appeal, defendants Nos. 12, 15, 22, and 37 died. Their legal representatives were not brought on record within the prescribed time. The plaintiff applied to set aside the abatement and to implead the legal representatives, but that application was dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's appeal had abated as a whole due to failure to bring the legal representatives of certain deceased respondents on record within time, in circumstances where the claim and reliefs were jointly sought against all defendants.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the claim and reliefs in the suit and the posture of the appeal before it. It noted that the plaint asserted a joint claim against all defendants and that no separate or distinct claim was made against any individual defendant. The first appellate court's partial decree operated against all defendants, and the High Court's dismissal likewise covered all defendants. The relief sought in the Supreme Court appeal was also against all defendants collectively.
Given this joint character of the cause and the reliefs, and in light of the death of certain respondents whose legal representatives were not timely substituted (with the subsequent application to set aside abatement having been dismissed), the Court held that the appeal could not proceed against the remaining respondents alone without affecting the joint nature of the adjudication. Accordingly, it concluded that the appeal had abated in its entirety under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED (as having abated in its entirety).
The direct consequence was that the plaintiff's challenge to the High Court judgment could not be adjudicated on the merits because the appeal stood abated as a whole due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of deceased respondents in a jointly framed claim. The Court made no order as to costs. The opinion does not indicate any broader legal implications beyond applying the abatement rule to the procedural posture described.
Hegde, J. :- This is a plaintiff's appeal. In the suit he asked for a permanent injunction against the 39 defendants therein directing them to demolish the construction in dispute on the land mentioned in Item (B) of the plaint, within the time fixed by the Court. He further sought a direction from the Court against all the defendants to fill up the pits and nalahs on the land mentioned in Item (B) of the plaint. In the alternative, he wanted the work in question to be done through the Court Amin at the cost of the defendants. The second prayer made by him is for a decree for possession of the disputed lands against all the defendants. The third prayer made in the plaint is for a decree in a sum of Rupees 1000/- against all the defendants as damages. He also prayed for a decree for costs against all the defendants.
2. The trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. The first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in part against all the defendants. On a further appeal being taken to the High Court the High Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the suit. As against the judgment of the High Court the plaintiff-appellant brought this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal defendants Nos. 12, 15, 22 and 37 died. Their legal representatives were not brought on record within the time prescribed. Thereafter the plaintiff applied to this Court for setting aside the abatement and impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondents. But that application was dismissed.
3. Now the question is whether the appeal has abated or not. As seen earlier in the plaint a joint claim is made against all the defendants. The first appellate Court, as mentioned earlier, decreed the suit in part against all the defendants. The High Court has dismissed the suit against all the defendants. In this Court relief asked for was against all the defendants. No separate claim was made against any of the defendants. Under these circumstances, quite clearly the appeal has abated as a whole under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert