- (1.) One Gian Devi was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration. She died on 19.3.1991. An application was moved by the present respondents on 12.12.1991 for being impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased, Gian Devi. The said application was contested by the defendant (petitioner herein) on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. The trial Court relying upon the judgment of this court in Sunil Kumar Jain and another v. Abdul Karim and others, 1991 2 RRR 460 (P&H), allowed the application. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the view taken by the this court in Sunil Kumar Jain's case was also taken by this court in Hardevi v. Joginder Singh, 1988 PunLJ 375, but this view was not accepted by the Supreme Court and was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in Mahant Niranjan Dass v. S.G.P.C., 1992 AIR(SC) 492 However, I find that now sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been substituted. The same reads as under: "Rule 3(2): "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 it if has been pronounced before the death took place, and the contract between the deceased and the pleader in that event shall continue to subsist." This amendment was not taken into consideration by the trial court at the time of deciding the application. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to decide the application of the legal representatives keeping in view the aforesaid amendment.;