Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High 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