LAWS(ORI)-2000-7-42

BETHEL GREEN GROWTH LIMITED Vs. GOSPEL FOR AREA

Decided On July 19, 2000
Bethel Green Growth Limited Appellant
V/S
Gospel For Area Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision No. 261 of 1998 has been filed against the order dated 4.8.1998 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in Title Suit No. 154 of 1994 and Civil Revision No. 262 of 1998 has been filed against the order dated 4.8.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in Title Suit No. 66 of 1995. Since the question involved is same, both the cases are taken up for hearing and covered by this judgment.

(2.) IN T.S.No. 154/98 (Civil Revision No. 261/98) an application was filed under Order 22, Rule 4 -A of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff -petitioner stating that the defendant No. 1 died on 2.8.1997 and that the legal heirs of defendant No.1 are not living in India and they have left India since long deserting the defendant No. 1 and whereabout of the legal heirs are not available or known to the plaintiff. As the defendant No. 1 has ot no legal representative, the estate left by the deceased defendant No.1 should be represented by an officer of the Court.

(3.) SHRI . S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order 24, Rule 4 -A of the C.P.C. is not confined to the cases where a party who dies during the pendency of the suit leaving no legal representative, but also applies to the cases where the legal representatives of the deceased party are not traceable. Learned counsel has referred to the objects and reasons behind the enactment of Order 22, Rule 4 -A which was brought to the Statute by way of amendment in the Civil Procedure Code in Year 1976. Shree Mishra submits that the Bill which was submitted before the Parliament with regard to the said amendment speaks of a case not only where the deceased - defendant has no legal representative, but also where legal reprehensive is not traceable. He further subther submits provision has been introduced by way of amendment so that the plaintiff may proceed with the suit. Therefore, trial Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer on the ground that the application is not maintainable in the facts of the case.