Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Declares Suits Against Deceased Persons 'Nullity': MP HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has clarified that lawsuits instituted against deceased individuals are a "nullity" from their inception. The ruling, delivered by Justice Pranay Verma, came in response to a revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) filed by plaintiffs seeking to withdraw a lawsuit and institute a fresh one after discovering that it had been initiated against deceased defendants.

The judgment emphasized the importance of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC in cases involving the filing of suits against deceased individuals. Justice Pranay Verma stated, "A suit instituted against a dead person believing him to be alive on the date of filing of the suit but later on being discovered that he has already expired is a nullity since the very inception."

The court further explained that such suits should be treated as if they were never instituted at all, and therefore, the principle of substitution of legal representatives is impermissible in such cases. As a result, the plaintiffs were granted permission to withdraw their original suit with the liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.

This ruling reaffirms the legal position that the filing of a lawsuit against deceased individuals is a formal defect and falls under the purview of Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. The judgment cited precedents from various High Courts and Supreme Court decisions, including V. Rajendran and Another V/s. Annasamy Pandian (2017) 5 SCC 63 and Indana International Limited V/s. Santana Miguel Fernandis and Another (2007) SCC OnLine Bom. 381, to support this interpretation.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving similar circumstances, providing clarity on the legal status of such lawsuits and the rights of plaintiffs to seek withdrawal and institute fresh suits.

Advocates Shri Aditya Goyal, representing the caveator/respondent No.8, and Shri Rajwardhan Gawde, Government Advocate for the State of M.P., were involved in the case.

Date of Decision: 09.10.2023

STATE OF M.P.  vs DEWAS, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

Similar News