In CR-943-2020 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- In view of 1992 Local Amendment made by P&H HC in Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC, there is no limitation for filing application to bring on record legal representatives of appellant, who died during pendency of appeal: P&H HC 
Justice Archana Puri [01-09-2022]

Read Order: Ram Pal (since deceased) through LRs v. Satbir Singh and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 5, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in view of the Local Amendment made by it in Order 22 Rule 3 CPC with respect to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Amendment (w.e.f. February  4, 1992), there is no limitation for filing an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the appellant, who had died during the pendency of the appeal. 

The Bench of Justice Archana Puri held, “In the light of the same, there is no limitation to bring on record legal representatives of the appellant-plaintiff, in a suit or an appeal, as the case may be. Order 22, Rule 3 (2), as substituted vide notification dated 21.2.1992, as inserted by High Court is saved and there is thus, no limitation for filing of an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the appellant, who had died during the pendency of the appeal.”

Briefly, the facts of the matter were that the plaintiffs initially filed a suit for possession and the same was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed the appeal, during the pendency of which, the first defendant-appellant died. Thereupon, the legal heirs of the said appellant filed an application for impleading them as LRs of the deceased. 

In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondents made an appearance and resisted the claim of the applicants. After hearing the arguments, vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed while observing that the deceased died on October 25, 2018, while the impleadment application was filed a year later (November 2019). It was thus held that since no application for condonation of delay was filed by the applicants, therefore, the appeal qua the first appellant (since deceased) abated, as the application was not filed within 90 days. Also, it was observed that there are three other appellants. 

The High Court did not find this view sustainable in light of the February 25, 1992 amendment made in Order 22 Rule 3 CPC by the High Court vide Punjab and Haryana High Court Amendment, 1992 (w.e.f. February 04, 1992). 

The amended Order 22 Rule 3 (2) CPC reads as follows, “Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall not abate as against the deceased plaintiff and the judgement may be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect as if it has been pronounced before the death took place, the contract between the deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist.”

The aforesaid amendment was not taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court.

Also, the Bench mentioned pertinently that the 1992 Local Amendment made in the CPC was not inconsistent with the amendment made by the Amending Act of 2002 and that it (1992 Local Amendment) was not repealed by the Amending Act 2002.

Thus, in light of the same, the Court opined that there was no limitation to bring on record legal representatives of the appellant-plaintiff, in a suit or an appeal, as the case may be. 

“Order 22, Rule 3 (2), as substituted vide notification dated 21.2.1992, as inserted by High Court is saved and there is thus, no limitation for filing of an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the appellant, who had died during the pendency of the appeal”, held the Bench. 

Thus, in the light of the aforesaid amendment made and the settled law, it was held that the lower Appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the application for impleadment of petitioners as LRs. Accordingly, the present revision petition was allowed.