Other Defendants Kept Land Suit Alive Despite Purchaser’s Pre-Suit Death; P&H HC Leaves His Heirs’ Defence Struck After They Refused To File A Written Statement

In brief

The question

1. Whether the suit’s having been instituted against Gurnam Singh after his death prevented his legal representatives from being impleaded when other defendants remained in the suit.

The court held

The Court rejected the petitioners’ challenge and dismissed the civil revision petition, leaving in place the order closing their opportunity to file a written statement and striking off their defence.

It also directed

Pending applications, if any, were also closed.

01Facts

Jaswant Singh sued for specific performance and related reliefs against several defendants, including Gurnam Singh, who had died before the suit was instituted.

¶ 2–4

The trial court decreed the suit in 2020, treating it as a nullity qua Gurnam Singh but declaring the relevant sale deeds void.

¶ 2–4, 12–13

After the legal representatives of another defendant obtained restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Jaswant Singh impleaded Gurnam Singh’s legal representatives; they did not challenge that impleadment order.

¶ 5–6, 14–15

The trial court later closed their opportunity to file a written statement and struck off their defence after their counsel stated they did not wish to file one.

¶ 7.1

They challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the suit was a nullity qua their predecessor.

¶ 1, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the suit’s having been instituted against Gurnam Singh after his death prevented his legal representatives from being impleaded when other defendants remained in the suit.

¶ 9, 12–18

ii.2. Whether the trial court’s order closing the petitioners’ opportunity to file a written statement and striking off their defence warranted interference under Article 227.

¶ 7.1, 19–21

03Law Applied

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court considered whether intervention in the trial court’s order was warranted.

¶ 1, 20

It relied on Karam Kaur (died) v. Dalip Singh (dead) through LRs, 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 361, for the rule that although a suit instituted against a deceased sole defendant is a nullity, where there are multiple defendants and one was already deceased, the deceased defendant’s legal representatives may be brought on record, subject to any limitation issue.

¶ 17–18

The trial court’s restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and its impleadment order were part of the procedural history.

¶ 5, 14

04Reasoning

Gurnam Singh was not the sole defendant; the suit continued against the other defendants, and the trial court had declared the sale deeds in issue illegal, null and void.

¶ 12–16

Applying Karam Kaur, the Court held that the suit’s nullity qua Gurnam Singh did not bar impleadment of his legal representatives while the suit survived against the other defendants.

¶ 17–18

The petitioners had not challenged the order impleading them and had appeared in the proceedings. When specifically asked whether they wished to file a written statement subject to costs, their counsel refused.

¶ 15, 19

The Court therefore found no compelling basis for supervisory interference.

¶ 20