APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 22, RULE 3, C. P. C.
APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE NAMES OF LEGATEES
IN THE COURT OF THE………………..
Misc. Application No………………… of
19………………..
in
C. D……………………………………………………….
Applicant
in
case C.
D………………………………………………………….
Plaintiff
versus
F. F……………………………………………………….
Defendant
In the matter of application for substitution of names of
legatees.
Sir,
In the abovenoted case it is respectfully submitted as under:
1. That the plaintiff……………….. died
on………………..
2. That the plaintiff made a will in which she has nominated the
applicant and……………….. as the executors.
3. That in the interest of justice it is essential that this
Honourable Court be pleased to deletion of the name
of……………….. permitting substitution of the names of the
legatees under the will in her place and making of the necessary
consequential amendments in the plaint as detailed below:
PRAYER
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to permit the applicant and……………….. to be
substituted in place of……………….. after deleting her name and
the applicant be permitted to make the amendment in the plaint:
(a) That in the title of the plaint the name of the deceased
plaintiff ……………….. be ordered to be deleted and in her place
the names of the following be permitted to be substituted:
1/1……………….. son of……………….. resident
of………………..
1/2……………….. son of……………….. resident of
(b) That in line 1 of para No. 1 of the plaint the words deceased
plaintiff was ” be permitted to be substituted in place of the words
“plaintiff is” and in line 4 the word “deceased” be permitted to be
added before the word “plaintiff.
(c) That in para 2 in lines 2, 3 and 4 the word “deceased” be
permitted to be added wherever the word “plaintiff occurs and in line 2
the “abuses” be allowed to be substituted by the word “abused” and in
line 5 the word “is” be permitted to be substituted by the word
“was”.
(d) That in line 2 of para 4, in the lines 2 and 4 of para 5, in line
1 of para 6 the word “deceased” be permitted to be added before the word
“plaintiff, and in line 1 of para 6 the word “is”, be permitted to be
substituted by the word “was”.
(e) That after para 6 of the plaint a new para marked as “6A” be
permitted to be added as follows:
“6A. That the substituted persons viz., Shri………………… and
………… are the legatees of the property of the deceased plaintiff
under the will dated………… made by the deceased plaintiff and they
are entitled to continue this suit for ejectment of the defendant from
the property in suit and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits
because the right of the deceased plaintiff survives.’’
(f) That in the verification clause in second line the words “part of
be permitted to be added after figure “6” and before the word “are” and
in line 4 the words “part of 6A” be permitted to be added in between
figures “6” and “7”.
It is accordingly prayed.
Applicant
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of this application are true to my
personal knowledge.
Verified and signed on this……………….. day
of……………….. 19………………..
at…………………
Applicant
Through Advocate
Dated:………………..
case law
Order 22 Rule 3
WHEN REFUSING SUBSTITUTION NOT PROPER
Where the delay in making substitution application was of few days
only and there was satisfactory explanation for delay in seeking
substitution, the High
Court was held to be in error in refusing substitution in the second
appeal
before it’.
WHO MAY FILE APPLICATION UNDER THIS RULE.
The words employed in this Rule, namely “on an application made in
this behalf ” clearly point out that any person may file such an
application. Thus a person who purports to be a legal representative of
the deceased plaintiff or appellant may file an application for bringing
on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or
appellant, although he may be found not to be real legal representatives
of the deceased plaintiff, and even then the names of the real
representatives of deceased plaintiff may be brought on record if their
names have been brought to the notice of the court2.
CONSENT DECREE BASED ON ONE VIEW OUT OF TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS
NOT LIABLE TO CHALLENGE.
Where a compromise decree was passed in appeal, the deed creating
religious trust could be constructed to have two views but the
compromise was based on one view, it could not be challenged in the
subsequent suit on the ground of collusion and fraud3.
CONTINUITY OF SUIT ON BASIS OF ORIGINAL SUIT.
When during the pendency of a suit the plaintiff dies, and his legal
heirs are substituted, they are entitled to continue the suit on the
basis of the claim laid by the original plaintiff. They are not entitled
to claim independent title of theirs contrary to what has been claimed
in the suit4.
DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION UNDER THIS RULE ON GROUND OF
INSUFFICIENT STAMP ON GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY — WHETHER JUSTIFIED? —
(NO)
Wherein an arbitration proceeding, an application of legal
representatives of a deceased party was dismissed on the ground of
insufficient stamps on the deed. Held that the document ought to have
been admitted in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty. The
dismissal of the application was unjustified5.
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE TO WRIT PETITIONS.
Though the elaborate and technical rules of the Code may not apply to
applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the
strength of section 141 of the Code yet the principles in general as
laid down in the Code would be applicable on the grounds of justice,
equity and good conscience in the matter of impleading the legal
representatives6.
EFFECT OF BONA FIDE MISTAKE IN NOT SUBSTITUTING ALL
HEIRS.
In a case of death of a party to a suit or appeal, even if any heir
of the deceased is left out of the record and the plaintiff or appellant
does not bring him on record in the bona fide belief that
others being on record the only heirs, the competence of the suit or
appeal will not be effected. It is immaterial whether no steps have been
taken within the time allowed7.
WHEN APPEAL ABATES AS A WHOLE
When two of the plaintiff appellants died, the decree of the District
Judge became final qua them. If thereafter the High Court granted a
decree to the other plaintiffs appellants there would be two
contradictory decisions with regard to the right which had been jointly
claimed by the plaintiffs. In such a case the second appeal before a
single Judge had abated as a whole and the order made by the Judge must
be set aside because he could not have heard the appeal and allowed
after it had abated8.
1. Harjit Singh v. Raj Kishore, A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 1238.
2. Ram Charan Lal v. State, A. I. R. 1980 Raj. 96: 1979 Raj. L. W.
439.
3. Jadu Gopal Chakravarty v. Pannalal Bhomic, A. I. R. 1978 S. C.
1329: (1978) 3 S. C. C. 215: (1978) 3 S. C. R. 855.
4. Radhakrishna Padhi v. Bholakrishna Panda, A. I. R. 1981 Orissa
63.
5. Ishwar Dayal Jain v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1983 Delhi 330.
6. Anant Ram v. Deputy Commissioner, Kulu, A. I. R. 1972 H. P. 15:
Also see A. I. R. 1968 P&H 360: A. I. R. 1967 All. 334.
7. Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Kala Prasad, 1968 B. L. I. R
494.
8. Puran Singh v. Hazara Singh, A. I. R. 1966 Punj. 312: 1966 Cur L.
J. 216.