Punjab and Haryana High Court raps trial court for oversight on 32-year-old CPC amendment

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 17

In a significant order raising serious questions about the adherence to legal frameworks within the judicial system, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has described as “unfortunate” a trial court’s failure to acknowledge a crucial amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, enforceable from February 1990. Despite the amendment being in effect for over 32 years, the trial court overlooked its significance, the Bench observed.

‘Failure unfortunate’

The Punjab and Haryana High Court described as “unfortunate” a trial court’s failure to acknowledge a crucial amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, enforceable from February 1990. Despite the amendment being in effect for over 32 years, the trial court overlooked its significance, the Bench observed.

The amendment revolves around the procedure in case of the death of one of several plaintiffs or the sole plaintiff. Taking up the matter, Justice Anil Kshetarpal asserted it was unfortunate that the trial court failed to take note of the amendment made in Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure enforceable from February 21, 1992.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted it was laid down while carrying out the amendment that the suit would not abate and the judgment might be pronounced notwithstanding the plaintiff’s death, where the application was not filed to bring on record his legal representatives within the time limited by law.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted: “Even after the passage of nearly 32 years, the trial court has overlooked the amendment. In this case, the trial court dismissed the application filed by class I heirs for permission to bring them on record. The court should have allowed the application, even if it was not filed within the prescribed time, particularly when the suit shall not have abated.”

Justice Kshetarpal’s judgment is significant as it underscores the importance of judicial awareness and timely implementation of legal amendments, emphasising the need for precision in the laid down procedures and upholding the principles of justice.

Elaborating upon the reasons behind bringing in the amendment, Justice Kshetarpal in his detailed order added the legal representatives were brought on record to prosecute or defend the suit. This provision had been incorporated to give an opportunity to the legal representatives to continue with the proceedings.

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Kshetarpal directed the setting aside of the impugned order, while allowing the application filed by the petitioners. The trial court was directed to permit the plaintiff’s legal representatives-petitioner to prosecute the suit.