High Court · 2025

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocat e, for t he pet it ioner. None appears t he respondent s. dat ed Pet it ioner is defendant no. 2 in a ( 2) filed by respondent no. 1. Plaint iff ( respondent no. 1) filed an applicat ion seeking leave t o am end t he pleadings. The said applicat ion was rej ect ed by t he Trial 17.1.2018. Court , t he Plaint iff/ respondent no. 1 challenged said order in a revision filed under Sect ion 115 CPC. During pendency of t he said revision, one of t he defendant s t o t he suit , died. nam ely, Plaint iff/ respondent applicat ion represent at ives of Roop Ram Saini. The said learned applicat ion was dat ed Revisional 12.9.2019. Pet it ioner has challenged t he said order, passed by t he Revisional Court on 12.9.2019, in t his writ pet it ion, filed under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion. Ram no. subst it ut ing Saini 1 m oved allowed Court Roop Learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner ( 3) cont ends t hat t he dat e of deat h was not m ent ioned in t he subst it ut ion applicat ion filed by t he plaint iff/ respondent no. 1 and in t he absence of t he lim it at ion for filing subst it ut ion applicat ion could not have been ascert ained, t herefore, learned Revisional Court erred in allowing t he subst it ut ion applicat ion. He furt her subm it s t hat subst it ut ion applicat ion was t he dat e of deat h, not support ed by affidavit and, as per t he inform at ion received by t he pet it ioner, Roop Ram Saini died about one year before filing t he subst it ut ion applicat ion. Thus he subm it s t im e barred and t he revision st ood abat ed. t he applicat ion was t hat learned Counsel ( 4) pet it ioner and perused t he record. Heard t he Pet it ioner is defendant no. 2, ( 5) while Roop Ram Saini is defendant no. 4 in t he suit . Legal represent at ives of Roop Ram t he order of Saini have not challenged subst it ut ion passed by t he Revisional Court . The cont ent ion t hat on account of delay in t he filing revision would st and abat ed against all t he respondent s cannot be accept ed. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Shivshankara & Anot her v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, report ed in ( 2023) 13 SCC 1, has held as under: subst it ut ion applicat ion, t he t he event of deat h of one of “ 5 9 . We are of t he considered view t hat t he sam e analogy is applicable in a case where t he defendant s, when t he est at e/ int erest was being fully and subst ant ially represent ed t he suit j oint ly by t he ot her defendant s along wit h t he deceased defendant and when t hey are also his legal represent at ives. I n such cases, by reason of non- im pleadm ent consequent ial t o t he deat h of t he said defendant , t he defendant s could not be heard t o cont end t hat t he suit should st and abat ed on account of non- subst it ut ion of all t he ot her legal represent at ives of t he deceased defendant .” ot her ( 6) learned Even ot herwise also, Revisional Court has exercised it s discret ion by allowing t he subst it ut ion applicat ion. This Court is not inclined t o int erfere wit h t he Revisional Court ’s discret ionary order while exercising supervisory j urisdict ion under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion. The t hat All t he rules of procedure are t he ( 7) handm aid language j ust ice. em ployed by t he draft sm an of processual law m ay be liberal or st ringent , but t he fact t he obj ect of prescribing rem ains procedure t he cause of t o advance j ust ice. I n an adversarial syst em , no part y should ordinarily be denied t he opport unit y of part icipat ing in t he process of j ust ice dispensat ion. Unless com pelled by express and specific language of t he st at ut e, t he provisions of CPC or any ot her procedural enact m ent ought not t o be const rued in a m anner which would t he court helpless t o m eet ext raordinary sit uat ions in t he ends of j ust ice. Apex Curt ( 8) t hat processual law is not t o be a t yrant but a servant , not an obst ruct ion but an aid t o j ust ice. Procedural prescript ions are t he handm aid and not t he m ist ress, a lubricant , not a resist ant t he adm inist rat ion of j ust ice. Since revision pet it ion filed by t he ( 9) plaint iff is yet t o be decided, t herefore any int erference by t his st age would be unwarrant ed. Consequent ly, writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. t his Court at Revisional Court is request ed t o ( 10) m ake endeavour t o decide t he revision, if possible, wit hin six m ont hs. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 2 5 .2 .2 0 2 5 Pr