Mrs. Veena Nirmalkumar Ruia and 4 Ors. Vs Radhakrishna Ramnarain Ruia and 9 Ors.

By an order dated 16 September 2011 the learned Single Judge recorded the statement of the Second Defendant that the First Defendant had died in 2000. Since no steps were taken for bringing the heirs of the First Defendant (who is also the Fourth Defendant to the suit) on the record, the suit is found to have abated as against the First Defendant and Defendant No.4A. This has been reiterated in the subsequent order dated 17 November 2011 and again on 17 January 2012.

The grievance of the Appellant is that the registry has not allowed the Appellants to register a Chamber Summons seeking appropriate reliefs under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2 of 2 APP.197.2012

It is always open to the Appellants, who are the original Plaintiffs, to move the Court by establishing sufficient grounds for setting aside of the abatement under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code and if such an application is made, it would be considered by the Trial Court. The registry cannot refuse to register a Chamber Summons. The question as to whether it is maintainable or whether any reliefs can be granted, would have to be decided by the Trial Judge.

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)

MST

Mrs. Veena Nirmalkumar Ruia and 4 Ors. v. Radhakrishna Ramnarain Ruia and 9 Ors.