STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHANDRAMANISHANKER JADHAVLAL SANGHVI
LAWS(GJH)-1963-2-11
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 06,1963

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
CHANDRAMANISHANKER JADHAVLAL SANGHVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.B.RAJU - (1.) This revision application is by the State of Gujarat. A few facts may be stated for understanding the controversy. Plaintiffs claim was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to rent etc. in respect of a shop. According to the plaint defendant No. 3 was in actual possession of the said shop as a tenant of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs therefore claimed to eject defendant No. 3 and prayed for possession of the shop. Defendant No. 3 died on 30-10-58 but this fact was not noticed by either the trial Court or the Counsel and a decree was passed on 7-1-59. An appeal was filed against the decree and in the course of the appeal application Ex. 14 was filed on 31-3-60 for bringing the heirs of deceased defendant No. 3 on record. Another application Ex. 23 was given by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that the suit had abated and that the Court should declare that the suit had abated. The appellate Court passed one order on both Exs. 14 and 23 on 26-7-60. The Court held that the whole suit cannot abate in the circumstances. It also allowed the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 3 to be added as respondents. It is against this order that the State of Gujarat happens to be made a party as a result of the merger of the State of Danta in which the property is situate with the State of Bombay.
(2.) In revision various contentions have been argued at length namely the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 Order 9 Rule 6 and Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.
(3.) Code and sec. 22 of the Limitation Act. But it is not necessary to decide those points because the whole matter can be decided shortly as follows:- Order 22 C.P. Code deals with death of parties and deals with cases where a plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs or a defendant or one of the defendants dies. It is provided in Order 22 Rule 11 as under:- In the application of this order to appeals so far as may be the word plaintiff shall be held to include an appellant the word defendant a respondent and the word `SUit an appeal. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.