DEEPKA INDUSTRIES Vs. SUKHA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contioversy here is with regard to the limitation for the filing of an application by a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be impleaded as such

(2.) THE plaintiff Inder Sain Jain died in April or May, 1989. It was on November 8, 1989 i. e. after more than 90 days of his death that his son Sukha Nand Jain applied for being impleaded as his legal representative. The bar of limitation was sought to be raised against this prayer on behalf of the defendants. It was in this context that the question arose whether the limitation for the filing of such an application was 90 days in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act or three years as per Article 137 of the Act. The trial Court following the judgment of this Court is Smt. Har Devi v. Joginder Singh, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 183, held that the limitation was three years as prescribed under Article 337 of the Limitation Act and the application for bringing the applicant Sukha Nand Jain as legal representative for his deceased father was thus in time. It was accordingly allowed.

(3.) A reference to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Har Devi's case (supra) would show that it is in turn based upon, the view ex pressed in the earlier judgment of this Court in Janak Singh v. Vasanda Ram, 1985 H. R. R. 82, where it was held that Article 120 was not applicable to an application by a legal representative to be impleaded as such. It being observed :-" the language employed in this Article leads to an irresistible conclusion that a period of 90 days is provided for filing of an application to have the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or an appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party. This Article is not attracted when the application is made by the legal representative to get himself impleaded as a legal representative. The use of words 'to have' is full of meaning. . It connotes that one person wants to have another person to be impleaded as a party When a legal representative of a defendant files an application that he should be impleaded as a party, the application is not to have him impleaded; rather it is to get him impleaded". A similar view was also taken In Paramjit v. Tara Chand, 1986 H. R. R. 66.