***

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) –

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate order or direction quashing the orders dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure P-3), 10.01.2017 (Annexure P-5), 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-9) and 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala in Civil Suit No.835 dated 19.05.2016 titled as ‘Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation and another Vs. M/s Banarsi Dass Satpal and another’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that in the present case, Satpal Singla-proprietor had died on 21.10.2014 and the present suit was filed on 19.05.2016 for recovery of money against Satpal Singla (who was deceased at that time). It is further submitted that in the zimni order dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure P-3), it was noticed that respondent had died and instead of dismissing the suit, the Court adjourned the case to 22.09.2016 for “record of LRs”. It is further submitted that a perusal of the zimni orders would show that neither any specific application for bringing on record the LRs was filed nor was it specifically allowed by the trial Court. It is submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint which application was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-9) and even review application filed was also dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-12) and both the said orders are being challenged in the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied upon a judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Sumer Singh Vs. Kashi Ram reported as 1994(1) RRR 48 as well as judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Transport Agency Vs. Awadhesh Kumar, reported as 1999(1) RCR (Civil) 197, in support of his argument that suit filed against a dead person is a nullity and in such a case the legal representatives cannot be allowed to be brought on record.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has very fairly stated that in the said facts and circumstances, the impugned orders be set aside and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed but liberty be granted to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file a fresh suit as the respondents were not in knowledge of the death of said Satpal Singla.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that he has no objection to the said course of action.

6. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the revision petition is partly allowed and impugned orders dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-9) and dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-12) are set aside and application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is partly allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff against deceased Satpal Singla is dismissed with liberty, as agreed to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to institute a fresh suit in accordance with law against the LRs of Satpal Singla.

7. It is made clear that it would be open to both the parties to raise all pleas as are available to them in law in case any such suit is filed.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.

Order accordingly.

********