Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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)

Latest Legal News