N KRISHNASWAMY REDDIAR Vs. MANICKAVASAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE court made the following order: the first review petitioner krishnasamy reddiar along with his brother deceased ramaswamy reddiar filed o. s. no. 22 of 1982 against the present respondent manickavasagam in the court of district munsif of musiri and obtained a decree ex parte on 1. 12. 1986, ramaswamy reddiar died on 4. 6. 1985 prior to the decree. in e. p. no. 236 of 1988 the first review petitioner sought to execute the decree. subsequently he filed e. a. no. 943 of 1988 under o. 21, rule 16 and sec. 151, c. p. c. for impleading present review petitioners 2 and 3 who are wife and daughter of ramaswamy reddiar l. rs. of the said ramaswamy reddiar in the abovesaid e. p. on 17. 11. 1993 learned district munsif allowed the application. THE respondent herein challenged the same before this Court in C. R. P. No. 148 of 1994. Learned single Judge in his order dated 17. 2. 1994 allowed the C. R. P. and set aside the order in E. A. No. 943 of 1988 and dismissed that application for impleading the present petitioners 2 and 3 as L. Rs. of deceased Ramaswamy reddiar. THE order in E. A. No. 943 of 1988 was set aside on the sole ground that admittedly at the time of passing of the decree Ramaswamy Reddiar was not alive. THE order of the court below is not according to law in impleading his legal representatives subsequently.

(2.) IN this application decree-holder Krishnasamy Reddiar and the legal representatives of Ramaswamy Reddiar seek review of the order of learned single Judge dated 17. 2. 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while a decree passed against a dead person is ab initio void, a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity. Such a decree can utmost be an irregularity only. A decree awarded without the knowledge of the death of the plaintiff can be executed by his legal representatives. Besides, in this case there is another plaintiff Krishnasamy Reddiar and even in the absence of legal representative of deceased Ramaswamy Reddiar a decree is a valid one. So, the impugned order of learned Single Judge suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) IN Valliammal v. Authorised Officer, (1973)1 M. L. J. 377, Ramasami, J. took the view that a mistake or error within the meaning of the provision in O. 47, Rule 1 of the C. P. C. is not confined to mistake or error of facts. Even on a mistake or error of law, if apparent on the face of the record, the order is liable to be reviewed.