PUSPA MONDAL Vs. NIRMALA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against Order No. 30 dated 29th June, 1994 passed by the District Judge. Howrah on an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. allowing the opposite party to be imuleaded in the Misc. Case 12/92.

(2.) The revisionist was married to Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal in 1965 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born to them out of their lawfull wed-lock being Shyamali by name. It is stated by the petitioner that she had been living with her husband Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal at all the material time. On 6th January, 1990, Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal (since deceased), is said to have assaulted the petitioner and forcibly driven her from the matrimonial house and sent her to mother's place. From then on the petitioner continued to reside until December, 1991, when her husband expressed his contrition for his misbehaviour, brought the petitioner back from her mother's place and thereafter both the spouses resumed their conjugal relationship. Subsequently, there was no love lost between them and therefore. Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal without the knowledge of the petitioner had somehow managed to file a matrimonial suit for divorce culminated in an exparte decree granting divorce against the petitioner on or about June 15,1990. The petitioner immediately after having come to know about the ex parte decree filed an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 12/ 92. But during the pendency of the Misc. Case the husband of the petitioner Dr. Dhaneswar Mondal died. Subsequently when the Misc. Case was listed for disposal before the learned District Judge and after she was examined in the proceedings an application was filed by the opposite party under Order 1 Rule 19(2) of the C.P.C. for impleading her as the opposite party. She filed an application to be impleaded being the mother of Dr. Mondal. The District Judge was however, inclined to accept the application of the opposite party and allowed her to be impleaded as opposite party/respondent in the Misc. Case. Thus, being aggrieved by such order, this revisional application has been filed by the wife of the deceased who was the defendant in Matrimonial Suit No. 40/90.

(3.) Mr. K.S. Roy, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has argued in support of the application. The main ground of his attack against judgment/order is that even a person may likely be affected by an order to be passed in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C., he does not have any right to be impleaded as a party. The suit filed by the petitioner's husband was only for declaration of status. Immediately following the death of the suitor the cause of action dies with the person. Since the cause of action does not survive after the death of the husband, the permission granted by the Court to be impleaded appears to be redundant.