Last Updated on October 17, 2023 by News Desk
Issue: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has addressed the key issue of whether an action filed against a deceased individual constituted a formal defect and if the plaintiffs may abandon the claim and start a new suit. Furthermore, the court addressed whether the substitution of legal representation in such instances is allowed.
Facts of the Case: The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of ownership to a specific parcel of property as well as a perpetual prohibitory order. However, it was discovered that the complaint had been filed incorrectly against deceased persons, including Defendant No. 2. The trial court denied the move to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was filed against deceased persons and their legal representatives could not be called to the stand. The plaintiffs’ subsequent attempt to withdraw the complaint under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC was also denied by the trial court. The plaintiffs filed a Revision under Section 115 of the CPC to contest this judgement.
Arguments Presented by Parties:
- Plaintiffs contended that the complaint had a formal flaw since it was filed against deceased persons and that they should be permitted to withdraw the suit and submit a new one.
- Respondent contended that the litigation against deceased persons was not a ‘formal deficiency,’ but rather a fundamental problem, rendering the claim null and invalid. As a result, they claimed that CPC Order 23 Rule 1(3) did not apply.
Reasoning of the Judgment: The Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on Thakur Deen Singh’s (deceased) precedent in Legal Representatives Rampratap Singh and Others v. Surendra Singh @ Radhika Singh (2017). The court highlighted that when an action is filed against a deceased individual, it is a ‘formal flaw,’ and the claim should be withdrawn with the option to submit a new suit. The court said unequivocally that such suits are null and invalid from the start.
Judgment: The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion under CPC Order 23 Rule 1(3). As a result, the plaintiffs were given permission to withdraw the claim and file a new suit on the identical ground of action. The court’s decision confirmed that claims filed against deceased individuals constitute ‘formal faults’ and should be allowed to be withdrawn in order to file new actions, but replacement of legal representation is not authorized in such situations.
Written by – Nikita Shankar
