LAW FOR ALL

Order XXII Rule 4 Sub-Rule 4 , New subrule 3A in rule 4 of Order XXII - whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents seeking a decree for declaration, partition and injunction against the appellants abated on the failure of the plaintiffs to file an application for substitution of the Legal Representatives of Virendra Kumar one of the defendants. In the First Schedule, in Order XXII,– (i) in Rule 4, after sub-rule (3), the following subrules shall be inserted, namely:- “(4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place.” - the legal representatives of Virendra Kumar, deceased, have already been brought on record in place of Devendra Kumar, their uncle (Virendra Kumar’s brother) who died issueless. They can, therefore, represent the estates left behind by both Virendra Kumar and Devendra Kumar. Grant of exemption in that view is only a matter of maintaining procedural rectitude more than any substantial adjudication of the matter in controversy. This Court has at any rate adopted a liberal approach in setting aside abatement of suits. 11. In the result this appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. The trial Court shall now proceed to dispose of the suit on merits as early as possible. No costs.