1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3875 OF 1999 Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s Hindusta Concrete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. T. G. Dhote Adv for petitioner. Mr. Chawhan Adv for respondent. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED: 19 th JULY, 2010. The Proprietor of the respondent firm expired on 30th January 1994. The financer (M.S.F.C.) initiated proceedings in terms of Section 31 of State Financial Corporation Act 1951. Application was made by the petitioner Ex. 13, to be under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. District Judge rejected the same and hold that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the claims under M.S.F.C. Act. Thereafter another application 2 below Ex. 18 was moved before the learned Judge, requesting for calling sale deed from Nazir. However, the learned District Judge did not accept the contention in Ex. 18 and observed, since the petitioners have not taken any steps to bring the legal representatives of the non applicant on record, instead of an application to substitute the name of the wife of the deceased was moved below Ex. 13, since order below Ex. 1 is passed, no case survives to call any sale debt as prayed by way of application. By virtue of amendment effective from 1st February 1977 Order 22 Rule 10A which reads as under is committed to statute book. 10(A): Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party- Whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist. It was effectively obligatory on the part of the counsel representing respondent to communicate by a notice or a pursis in the proceedings to other side about the 3 death of the respondent and also the legal representatives. Having not done so it could not be said a petitioner-financer was in slumber. Obligation being mandatory it will be acting adversely against the respondent, which requires interference. However the matter is remanded to the learned District Judge where the petitioner M.S. F. C. is at liberty to make an application in terms of Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. Rule partly made absolute in above terms. Petitioner to appear before the learned District Judge Nagpur on 17th August 2010. JUDGE svk 4