R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 21.5.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri, who dismissed the application of the LRs of Telu Ram under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC as a result of that the suit filed by Telu Ram was dismissed in default.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Telu Ram son of Asha Ram deceased filed a suit for declaration against Mangat Ram to the effect that he is the owner of the property fully described in the head note of the plaint. He further prayed that directions be issued to the defendant to restore the vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. The suit was contested. During the pendency of the suit Telu Ram plaintiff died on 5.3.1992. According to the applicant/petitioners, they are the LRs of deceased Telu Ram plaintiff and there is no other LR of said Telu Ram. In these circumstances they made an application for impleading them as LRs in place of Telu Ram plaintiff. Notice of the application was given to the respondent/defendant, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondent/defendant Telu Ram died in February 1992 and not in March 1992. Moreover, the applicants are not the LRs of Telu Ram. In the alternative it was pleaded by the respondent that the application is not within the limitation and requires dismissal. The parties addressed arguments before the trial Court and for reasons given in para 4 and 5 of the impugned order, the learned trial court dismissed the application and also dismissed the suit in default. Paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order can be quoted in the following manner :- "4. The Ld. counsel for the appellants has argued that death certificate has been placed on file which proves that Telu Ram expired on 5.3.1992 and not in February 1992 as alleged by the respondent-defendants. He also drew my attention in the insertion made on 4th February 1992 in sub-rule (2) of the Rule 3 of the order, 22 CPC which reads as under :- "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 judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect on it, has (had it?) been pronounced before the death took place and the contract between the deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist." Due to the above stated insertion the suit shall not abate as against the deceased plaintiff and therefore the applicant should be allowed to be impleaded as L.Rs of the deceased plaintiff. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the respondent-defendants has argued that the application is not within time and therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. He also cited the following authority i.e. PLR Vol. CII (1992-2) 497 in case titled as Mehant Niranjan Dass v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. In this case it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :- "Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly provides period of 90 days for having L.Rs of the deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent to be made a party." 5. I have heard the ld. counsel, for the parties. Keeping in view the above authority cited by the ld. counsel for the respondent-deceased I hereby hold that the application is not within time i.e. not within the period of 90 days from the date on which the plaintiff had expired i.e. on 5.3.1992 whereas the present application has been filed by the applicants on 26.8.1992. The applicants have also not filed any application for condonation of delay stating therein reasons for such a delay. I hereby on this ground i.e. application being the time barred dismiss the application but keeping in view the insertion made in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 Order 22 of CPC also hold that the suit shall not abate as against the deceased plaintiff and further that as the application is dismissed there is none today to appear on behalf of or represent the plaintiff. The suit is, therefore, being dismissed in default." 3. I have heard Mr. M.S. Guglani, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advocate behalf of the respondent.
(3.) THE High Court has amended Order 22 Rule 3 CPC vide Punjab and Haryana High Court Amendment dated 25.2.1992 w.e.f. 4.2.1992 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order 22 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 judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding his death which shall have the same effect as if it has been pronounced before the death took place, and the contact between the deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist." ;