59 0 IN THE IUGH CO OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision Noe 4830of2010 Ml Dateofdecision2 April 06 2011 PritamKaur and others Petitioners Vs IndraBal IndraRani andothers 1 Coram2 Honble Mr Justice AeNeJindaI Presentl Mr SatbirGill Advocatefor the 0 Mr Nitesh SinghiAdvocatefor the 0 AN Jindal J Z 5 This petitionassailsthe order dated 43010 passedby the I leamed District Judge Sahib decliningthe of the for them as legalheirs of Singhand Z e directingabatementof the suit for damages on account of malicious 2 The prime to be determinedin the case is whether I duringthe pendencyof the appealagainstthe decree for malicious Z on the deathofthe the suit was to be abated2 The factual ofthe case is that No had OO flled a false NoAeT of2991993 againstHarbhajan Singh6since 7 Z deceasedl that he had pulleddown the wall of the house of the Nol herein and threatenedto kill her theHarbhajan Singh tl faced trial from 17101994 to 2852001 and ultimately was by theJudicial Magistrate Ist Class Sahib on 2852001 Due tothe longpendency ofthe trial Harbhajan Singhhad to spend a lot his business was ruined on account ofwhich he had suffered a loss ofl500001 and his was also lowered in the eyesofthe generalpublic As such Singh6since had filed a suit for malicious 1 against Nol The suit filed by Singhwas decreedfor 1000001 l alongwith interest 6Io per annum on l82007 The filed an appealduringthe of which Harbhajan Singhdied As such the Parkash Om 2013.01.15 14: 23 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 0 Civil Revision Noe 4830of2010 2 moved an for them as legal Singh The said has been contestedby the They took the standthat on the deathof HarbhajanSinghplaintiffon 1A20 10 the suit was liable to be abatedon account of the fact that the cause of actionquo as raisedby Singhon account of malicious was one therefore on the death of Singhno cause of actionsurvivesto his legal The appellate court the for the legalheirs 1 andorderedthe suitto be abated 0 heard Record 0 Thereis no denying a fact that a decreefor a sum of l lac Oll I account was passedbythe Civil Judge6SrDivision9 C5 Sahib in a suit for damages on account of malicious and the I appeal as preferredby IndraBal IndraRani was pendingbeforethe Z court when Singh since plaintifodied Learned counselfor the has urgedthat thoughthe injurysufferedby 1 Singh on account ofmalicious was one yet I on of the claim and passing of decree the rightof the legal is createdin the decreeas the cause of action mergesin the Z decree and decree becomesthe partof the estateof the deceased In this 0 regardhe has referredme to the delivered in case Melepuralh m7 Sankunni Ezhuthassanv Thekittil Nair AIR 1986SC 411 Z vvhereinit was observed as under l Il 41A plainffs suitfor was decreedb the Court but dismissedbytheHighCourt in Second Appeal There was an appeal to this Court bytheplaintiffby specialleave and duringitspendencytheplaintiffdied Thus Court declined to allow the legal of the plaintiffto come on record and prosecutethe appealon the groundthat byreason of the dismissal ofthesuit bytheHigh Court the plaintij stood relegatedto his originalposition and thereforethe abated on his death The decision pointedout that the position would have been Parkash Om 2013.01.15 14: 23 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 1 Civil Revision Noe4830 of2010 e3e different if theplaintiffhad a decreein hisfavour because then the cause of action would get merged in the decree and the decreewouldformpart of the estate of the deceased which his legal are entitled to uphold 11 In the instant case also the suit as ftled byHarbhajanSingh was decreedfor a sum of l lac on account of for malicious 1 which was decreedduringhis life time therefore becauseof C thepassing of the decree cause of action stoodmerged in the decreeand 0 thedecreebecamethe partof the estate of the deceasedwherein rightof his C0 legal is created HighCourt in a similarcase titled Ram Lal and etc vs Mahender Singhand etc 20021 RCR C5 I Criminao367 20021 RCR iviO447 2 2008 AIR jJ 8 while Section 306 ofthe IndianSuccession Act and relyingupon Z SankunniEzhuthassanscassuprabserved as under l 0 7 Thus as far as the questionof abatementis concerned on thebasisof the aforesaid legalpositionsince the suit was Cl Z partlydecreed by the learned trial court in favourof the plaintifftothe extent o1 15001 theappealcannot be said to 4 have abated Oll the death of the defendant Ram Lal on m I011992 becausethe cause of action stood mergedin the Z decree and thereforerightto sue for enhancementof the decretal amount in thepresentappealaganst wrong rejection ofpartof the claim survived with theplaintifflappellant and thefurther if any awarded infalIouroftheplaintif could be the estateofthe Therefore the of the Iearned counsel for the thattheappeal abated deservesto be overruledandhe same is accordingly overruled Il No doubt lll a defamationcase cause of action does not survive on the death of the defamedbut the same principle does not apply tn cases wherethe cause of action hasmergedinto the decree As a matter Parkash Om 2013.01.15 14: 23 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 0 Civil Revision Noe 4830 of 2010 4 of fact after the decree is passedthe decretalamount formspartof his assetsandthe appeal from thedecreebythe defendantsbecomesa of bene6t or detriment to the estate of the which his legal are entitledto uphold and defendand are thereforeentitled to besubstitutedin placeofthe deceasedplaintiff The learnedcounselfor the hasplacedrelianceon the various judgments 1 M Veerappa vs Evelyn ueira and others AIR 1988 SupremeCourt 506 Gajanand v Vishnu and OrseAIR 2006 178 Om Sharan v Bansidhar and others AIR 1981NOC 202 1 RajJ Ratanchand v MunicipalCommittee HinganghatAIR 1931 0 Nagpur9 and Motilal and another ve Harnarayan 0 Premsukh and another AIR 1923Bombay408 Z Havingscrutinized thereis no quanel with the 9 settled of law that on the deathof the plaintiffin defamation I suit cause of action does not survive but these are not Z to the facts ofthe presentcase The said could apply i the SUlt ofthe plaintiffhas been dismissedand he wasln appealin that L situation since the suit mergesinto appealthen on the deathofthe plaintiff I the cause of action would not havesurvivedand the would stand abated Z Havingexainined the order it that the dm court has not takencorrect Vlew of the matter and hasnot taken I7 notice of the delivered by the Apex Court 111 Z Sankunni Ezhuthassans case supra and legaI hasnot been rl properly solved As such the impugned orderbeingperversedeservesto be reversed In the wake of the aforesaiddiscussionsI herebyacceptthe revlSlOn petitionset aside the order and allow the of thepetitioners to be impleaded as legal of Harbhajan Singh plaintiffsince deceasecand permitthemto continuewith theappeal April06 2011 deepak Judge 1 4d0 1 Parkash Om 2013.01.15 14: 23 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document