1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  3, Order 22, Rule 9 - Right to move the Court for setting aside of an abatement is not restricted only to the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, but it extends also to the assignee of the deceased plaintiff - This is because despite there being an assignment of his rights in the subject matter of litigation by the plaintiff during the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff has the right to continue to pursue the suit and the assignee may not seek to bring himself on record - However, he will then be bound by the outcome of the litigation. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  3 - Abatement -There was simply no need at all to file any application for condoning delay in filing legal representative application or for setting aside abatement - The appeal could have been prosecuted even in the absence of the legal representatives from being brought on record as per the amended provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 CPC - The deceased appellants will be deemed to be alive for the purpose of disposal of the appeal - Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) Article 120. (173) P.L.R.
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  3 - If within the time limited by law, no application had been filed 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 his death took place - This would mean that for the purpose of enforceability of the award, the claimant will be treated as alive when the award was passed - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166.  (182) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  3 - Well settled that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings - LRs. brought on record by appellate court case remanded - It was not necessary for the LRs to move a fresh application to bring the LRs of the deceased plaintiff on record - The filing of amended memo of parties and the correction in the memo of parties/cause title are ministerial acts - They do not go to the root of the matter, and mere failure to file the amended memo of parties, or to correct the status of the parties in the circumstance like the one in hand, cannot have a bearing on the substantive rights of the parties to the lis - It is well settled that procedures are handmaids of justice and the lapse or failure - assuming there was one, in filing the amended memo of parties before the appellate court in the first round and before the Trial Court after remand, could not have dealt a fatal blow to the rights of the LRs to pursue the right to sue, which survive the demise of the original plaintiff.  (179) P.L.R. (Del.)
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4, 5 - Statement had already been filed by the defendant denying the agreement, but, the plaintiff instead of taking steps to implead the LRs, allowed the benefit of amendment under Punjab Amendment Order 22 Rule 4 - Punjab state amendment that allows for deeming a dead person alive must be limited to a situation where the presence of deceased himself would not have made a difference - If the only defendant dies, it will be an utter travesty of justice if the plaintiff could march forth and secure a decree as though it was decided on contest - If on the defendant's death, a legal representative comes on record seeking to prosecute the case, the pre-dominant concern for the court must be to see whether there was anything particular on the record that could justify the non-impleadment or the legal representative of the defendant.  (182) P.L.R.
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4 - Application has been filed on the basis of the Will - Court below dismissed the application on the ground that since the interest of the applicants is adverse to the interest of the already impleaded legal representatives, it will open a new front of litigation, whereas the legal representatives are impleaded only for the purpose of pursuing the litigation and the title or the status of the legal representatives is not to be decided while deciding the application for impleading LRs. - It was also observed that the petitioners may file a separate suit, if so advised, on the basis of the Will but they are not entitled to be impleaded - The order of the learned Court below is patently erroneous. (177) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4 - Application has been filed on the basis of the Will - Court below dismissed the application on the ground that since the interest of the applicants is adverse to the interest of the already impleaded legal representatives, it will open a new front of litigation, whereas the legal representatives are impleaded only for the purpose of pursuing the litigation and the title or the status of the legal representatives is not to be decided while deciding the application for impleading LRs. - It was also observed that the petitioners may file a separate suit, if so advised, on the basis of the Will but they are not entitled to be impleaded - The order of the learned Court below is patently erroneous. Jasminder Singh Kular  v. Manjit Singh . (177) P.L.R.
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4 -Whenever a suit is filed against a dead person who is the sole defendant in the suit, the suit would be a nullity and the legal representatives of the said defendant cannot be substituted with the help of Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. (177) P.L.R.
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4 -Whenever a suit is filed against a dead person who is the sole defendant in the suit, the suit would be a nullity and the legal representatives of the said defendant cannot be substituted with the help of Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. Smt. Anguri Devi v. Vikas Bajaj . (177) P.L.R.
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4 (3) - Places burden on the legal heirs and representatives of deceased defendant dying pending proceedings to approach the Court in the pending action for substituting their name/s in place of the deceased-defendant - Conversely, the amendment exempts the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who failed to file written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing, and the judgment may, in such case, by pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding his death and the decree so passed shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place - Transfers the burden from the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant on record on the defendants to have stepped forward to get themselves substituted. (177) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  4-A - Plaintiff who filed the suit to set aside the sale in favour of first defendant as having been obtained by fraud, died pending suit - Fourth defendant is subsequent purchaser of a portion of the property covered in suit - There is no legal representative - Proper would be to cause publication in the village and invite any person, who may volunteer to prosecute case and who may represent the estate of the deceased - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) S. 8. (183) P.L.R.
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  5 - An application to seek the setting aside of the abatement and for bringing on record the legal representative/assignee does not necessarily have to be moved by all the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff - The applicant is not obliged to bring on record all the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff - If there has been an assignment by the plaintiff prior to his demise to one or more of the legal representatives, or to someone who may not even be a natural heir of the deceased plaintiff, it is open to the assignee as well to move the application to seek the setting aside of the abatement and to bring himself on record in place of the deceased plaintiff. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule  5 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) S. 387, Part X - Proceedings are themselves summary in nature and they cannot finally operate on the heirship relating to the property - The proceedings are only to ensure that the outstandings are collected by persons who have a prima facie right for the amounts to be claimed on behalf of the deceased and any person who receives the same will receive it as a trustee for all the legal heirs - No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties and nothing contained in the Part will constitute resjudicata.  (179) P.L.R.
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10, Section 146 - Transefree pendente lite has right to continue to prosecute or defend the suit by stepping into the shoes of the transferor - Consequently, it cannot be said that  respondent transferee had no locus standi to file application.   (173) P.L.R.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - Application for being substituted as defendant being assignee /transferee - Fact that property has been purchased by the vendee during the pendency, sale itself will not become void. The sale deed will remain valid but it will be subject to the determination of dispute by the Court. Therefore, present petitioner is to be substituted/impleaded.    (177) P.L.R.
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - Decree will be binding on all successor entities on whom devolved the rights and liabilities - There is no need to add or substitute the successor entity as a party to the litigation and the successor entity is automatically bound by the decree passed against the original entity. (174) P.L.R. (Del.)
  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - Expression "during the pendency of suit" ought not to be understood as after the decree is passed - If a decree is passed then unless the decree is assailed in a higher forum by the defendants themselves who had suffered a decree or by any person who is aggrieved against the decree who may take leave of the court to prefer an appeal, a subsequent purchaser cannot have resort to Order 22 Rule 10 CPC or make an objection at the stage of execution.  (183) P.L.R.
  18. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - Impleament - After purchasing the leasehold rights, the suit was filed in the year 2006 and the leasehold rights were purchased in the year 2008 - For six long years, the present applicant-petitioner did not chose to file any application for impleadment as the defendant in the suit - Moreover, the leasehold rights were purchased in violation of the trial Court order - Petitioner-applicant had not acquired the absolute rights of the property and gave no explanation for six long years delay in filing application - Application dismissed - Order upheld.  (182) P.L.R.
  19. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - It makes all the difference as to when the application can be moved by a subsequent alienee - If it is after the suit and before the decree, such an assignee steps into the shoes of a defendant and may prevent any scope for any collusion between his assignor and the plaintiff - Order 22 Rule 10 CPC can at all times therefore be invoked to protect the interest of an assignee before the decree is passed - It will mean utter travesty of justice if Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could be permitted to be invoked by a lis pendens  purchaser at the stage of execution, that is, after the decree is passed - Order 22 Rule 10 CPC allows for impleadment to an assignee only during the pendency of a suit.  (183) P.L.R.
  20. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - No objection could be entertained at the stage of execution when decree is put to challenge in independent suit.  Held, that there is another reason why impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could not have been entertained. Respondents 1 to 4 have already begun their adventure of opening a new vista for themselves by instituting a suit challenging the decree as obtained by fraud. If a decree could be set aside as fraudulent, till such a decree is set aside on an alleged voidable nature of the decree, the court will be wrongly lending a premium to such a person the benefit of assumption that the decree is void. A decree lawfully passed by the court or what it appears to be so on the face of it ought to be taken to the next stage.  (183) P.L.R.
  21. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - That the purchasers were already in possession under a power of attorney and, therefore, they ought to have been impleaded and the rights of a subsequent purchaser would require to be heard - First of all, an enquiry into bona fides of purchase is irrelevant to a pendent lite purchaser - Transfer of Property Act, 1822 (IV of 1822) S. 53-A.  (183) P.L.R.
  22. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 10 - Vendor has already been proceeded ex-parte  - Right of and interest of subsequent transferee has seriously been effected therefore the trial Court has rightly allowed the application.   (182) P.L.R.
  23. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 17 - Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be invoked to delete the name of a dead person who was dead before the institution of the suit or for the purpose of substituting any other person in his place. (177) P.L.R.
  24. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 22, Rule 17 - Provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be invoked to delete the name of a dead person who was dead before the institution of the suit or for the purpose of substituting any other person in his place. Smt. Anguri Devi v. Vikas Bajaj . (177) P.L.R.