GULJARI LAL GROVER Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) It transpires that Canara Bank filed a suit for the recovery of a loan against a partnership firm M/s Hindustan Radios and its two partners, namely, Gulzari Lal Grover and Nikkamal Grover who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It transpires that a loan agreement was executed between the parties for overdraft facilities. The amount withdrawn was not refunded. It is alleged that the bank issued a notice for its repayment, which was duly received by one of the defendants and, inspite of the receipt of the notice, the amount was not repaid and consequently, the suit for recovery was filed against the firm and its two partners. Upon issuance of the summons, the defendant No. 2, Gulzari Lal Grover, the present petitioner, filed his written statement alleging that the suit was a nullity in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the suit was instituted against a dead person. The defendant No. 2 alleged that defendant No. 3, Nikkamal Grover, who was his father had died on 2.12.1984, prior to the filing of the suit, whereas the suit was instituted on 14.7.1988 and therefore, the suit filed against a dead person was a nullity and was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Upon coming to know of the death of the respondent No. 3 through the written statement, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application on the same date, before the trial court, praying that the defendants be directed to intimate the Court the heirs of the deceased No. 3. The said information was supplied by the defendants and, within a week thereafter, an application was filed for substitution of the heirs of defendant No. 3 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff contended that the bank was unaware of the death of defendant No. 3 and that inspite of issuance of notice and receipt of the said notice by defendant No. 2, no such intimation was supplied to the bank about the death of the defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 2 raised his objection with regard to the proposed submission and submitted that since the suit was a nullity and that since the suit was instituted against a dead person, no amendment or impleadment in the plaint could be allowed since the court lacked inherent jurisdiction to allow such an application.