CR No.622 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.622 of 1994 Decided on : 27.10.2010 Mrs. Sulochana & others ... Petitioners versus Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Fed. Ltd. & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present : Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Gurdev Singh, J. The petitioner – Mrs. Sulochana has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 16.08.1993 passed by Sub Judge, Chandigarh vide which the application filed by her for bringing her on the record as legal representative of the deceased – R.S.Goyal – plaintiff was disallowed and the suit was dismissed as abated. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced below: “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds no merit in the instant application. It is not disputed that no evidence has been recorded in the instant case during the lifetime of the plaintiff. The dispute in the instant case relates to the personal rights of the deceased plaintiff. The law cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is not at par with the facts and circumstances of the present case because CR No.622 of 1994 -2- their matter was pertaining to the writ jurisdiction and the question was only question of law. In the instant case, being a civil suit, here is a mixture of question of fact as well as law which cannot be decided without recording the evidence. Statement of the deceased plaintiff was very material and no purpose will be served to keep the case pending any more. Therefore, application stands dismissed. Resultant, suit of the plaintiff also stands dismissed as abated. File be consigned to the record room.” The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the order dated 26.10.1987 issued by defendant No.2 terminating his services was illegal, invalid, null and void, nonest, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and as such was liable to be set aside. He also made a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to reinstate him in service with continuity of service along with the full back salary w.e.f. 12.10.1984 along with interest @ 18%. According to order 22 Rule 1 CPC, when the sole plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the court on an application made in that behalf shall cause the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. The question to be determined for the decision of the application filed by the petitioner, was : (a) Whether the right to sue survived after the death of the plaintiff? The plaintiff was not only claiming his reinstatement after setting aside the order, vide which his services were terminated, but CR No.622 of 1994 -3- had also prayed for the back wages. The back wages was to enhance his estate to which the petitioner was to succeed after his death. Thus, the right to sue survived even after his death. The Sub Judge, Chandigarh committed an illegality while dismissing the application on the basis of the observation, which have been reproduced above. Such an order can be sustained Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner is accepted. She is ordered to be brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The trial court shall make an endeavour to decide the suit, after the receipt of the copy of this order, within a period of one year. October 27, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH) sonia JUDGE