Skip to main content

Death of a party in CPC

 Death of a party in CPC.

When a civil suit is filed the case is closed only when the judgement is out or the decree is announced but they certain cases when the case happens to close or abate even before the judgement.

Civil suit is a time taking proceeding and during the proceeding if any party happens to be a victim of unforeseen circumstances like death or marriage or insolvency .

The question is whether the above mentioned circumstances would affect the proceeding of a civil suit or not?

If any such contingency is suffered by any of the parties Will affect the proceeding of the civil suits and there may be changes in the suit.

Order 22 of civil procedure code 1908 speaks about the provisions in case of death, marriage, insolvency of party during a civil case.

Death of a party rule 1 to 6

In case a party dies during the proceedings of the civil suit, the a cross analyse is done that , if the right to sue exist or has died with the person.

Right to sue is right to remedy of a person because of whom The suit was actually generated and came into existence .

Action personalis moritur cum persona (a personal action with the person )A person’s action dies with the person.

For example cases related to maintenance, pension,divorce 

On the contrary, there are some cases in which the action does not die with the person

Examples in case of rent,damage ,injury etc

Right to sue survives even if the person dies.


Rule 1 - In case of a party‘s death, a case does not abate if right to sue survives the Proceeding will have no effect and will continue in the same manner.

Rule 2- A case can have a multiple number of defendants and plaintiffs 

In such case, if any one of the plaintiffs or defendants unfortunately dies , The right to sue still exist with the remaining plaintiffs or defandants . Thus The civil suit will have no effect and the proceeding will continue in the same manner.


Rule 3 - in case if there is one plaintiff in a civil suit and that plaintive dies during the proceedings of the civil suit and it is noted by the court that on an application from a legal representative of the plaintive is made a party and shall proceed . Legal Representative of the plaintiff must apply for the application within 90 days 

In case there is two or more plaintiffs and anyone of the plaintive dies and with it the right to sue dies with the plaintiff . It is observed by the court that the right to sue does not exist with the remaining plaintiff , a legal representative is made the party of the case.


Rule 4 - in case there are multiple number of defendants and one of the defendants dies and along with it the right to sue dies with the person or in case of sole defendant dies but still the right to sue survives.

Does this condition if a person submits an application turn out on the behalf of the application the person is made a party and the proceedings are continued.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more