INTHEBOMBAYCITYCIVILCOURTATMUMBAI

CHAMBERSUMMONSNO.364OF2004
IN
SUITNO.4143OF1985

PramodKumarKishanchandGupta ...Applicant.

KishanchandP.Gupta ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mrs.MinooPavri ...Defendant.

Appearances:
Ld.Adv.Mr.SubhashBanefortheapplicant.
Ld.Adv.Mr.Khatibfordefendant.

CORAM: HISHONOURJUDGE
SHRIS.E.BANGAR
(C.R.No.14)
DATED:9thMarch,2017

ORDER
Athirdparty/applicanthastakenoutthischambersummonsfor
seekingleaveoftheCourtforamendingtheplainttobringonrecord
himself as Karta of the plaintiff HUF and for further prayer to stay
proceedingoradjournthesametillfinaldisposaloftheAppealNo.284
of 2002 in R.A.D.SuitNo.2637of 1985 pending before the Courtof
SmallCauses,Mumbai.

2. Prafulla R. Hede, power of attorney of the applicant

Pramodkumar Kishanchand Gupta by his affidavit in support of the
chambersummonssoughttobringonrecord,thefactthatKishanchand
P.Gupta,KartaandManagerofKishanchandP.Gupta,HUFhasdied
on23.10.2001leavingbehindhimtheapplicantaslastsurvivingco
parcener. It is contended that the applicant being the only male
descendant of the deceased Karta and Manager of Kishanchand P.
Gupta,HUF,isnowtheKartaandManagerofthesaidfamily.Asthe
CS 364/04 .. 2 .. Suit No.4143/85

plaintiffisanHUF,righttosuesurvivesevenupondemiseofexisting
Kartaandmanagerwhohadinstitutedthesuitforandonbehalfofthe
HUF.Therefore,accordingtohimthesuitdoesnotabateonaccountof
demiseofsoleKartaandManageroftheplaintiffHUF.Theapplicant
has executed Deed of Power of Attorney on 31.7.2002 authorising
Prafulla R. Hede to represent him as like he was representing the
deceasedKartaandManagerKishanchandP.Guptaintheflat.

3. TheinformationregardingthedemiseofKishanchandP.Gupta
wassubmittedorallybyAdvocateforthedefendantssubmittedtothe
Courton27.2.2004andrequestedthesuittobedismissedasabated.
The Advocate for the defendant has resisted the said request by
pointingouttheexistenceofHUFastheplaintiffandthattheapplicant
hastakenoverastheKartaandManagerthereof,whenthesuitwas
fixedfororderson10.3.2004.

4. Theapplicantcontendsthattheamendmentassoughtforisa
formalcorrectionincausetitleofthesuit. Therefore,itbeallowed.
Simultaneouslyhehasprayedforstayingthesuittillfinaldisposalof
suit No.2637 of 1985 pending before the Court of Small Causes,
MumbaibyexercisingpowerunderSection10ofC.P.C.

5. The Advocate for the defendant has endorsed his say on the
affidavit of service of the chamber summons. According to him as
KishanchandP.Gupta,theKartaandManagerofHUFhasexpiredon
23.10.2001, present chamber summons having been taken out after
lapseofaperiodofthreeandhalfyearssincethen,isbarredbylawof
limitation.Hence,itisrequiredtobedismissed. Itisfurtheralleged
that no explanation regarding the delay so caused in taking out the
CS 364/04 .. 3 .. Suit No.4143/85

chamber summons and for setting aside the abatement has been
averredbytheapplicant. Hence,chambersummonsissoughttobe
dismissedwithcosts.

6. Theapplicantbyaffidavitinrejoinderhasattemptedtoproveon
recordthefactsregardingthesubjectmatterinissueandhasopposed
the contentions of the defendant. He has placed reliance on the
observations made by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai and the
Hon.High Court of Bombay while dealing with the Suit NO.2637 of
1985 andAppeal No.284 of 2002. Soalsothe facts regarding Writ
PetitionNo.2004of2005havebeenreferredtoclaimthatthattheright
tosuesurvivesagainstthedefendant.

7. IthasbeenarguedbythelearnedAdvocatefortheapplicantthat
chamber summons is not barred by law of limitation nor it stands
abateduponthedemiseofKartaandManagerKishanchandP.Gupta
forKishanchandP.Gupta,HUF.Therefore,thechambersummonisnot
barredbylawoflimitationnorwouldbethereanynecessitytoseek
condonation of any delay. However, it this Court arrives at a
conclusionthatthereisdelayintakingoutthechambersummonsfor
seekingleavetoamendtheplaint,itisprayedtobecondoned.

8. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has relied upon the

observationsoftheHon.SupremeCourtinthecaseofN.Balakrishnan
Vs.M.Krishnamurthy,MANU/SC/0573/1998:AIR1998SC3222.It
hasbeenobservedthat,
9.Itisaxiomaticthatcondonationofdelayisamatterofdiscretionof
the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such
discretioncanbeexercisedonlyifthedelayiswithinacertainlimit.
CS 364/04 .. 4 .. Suit No.4143/85

Lengthofdelayisnomatter,acceptabilityoftheexplanationistheonly
criterion.Sometimesdelayoftheshortestrangemaybeuncontainable
duetowantofacceptableexplanationwhereasincertainothercases
delayofverylongrangecanbecondonedastheexplanationthereofis
satisfactory.Oncethecourtacceptstheexplanationassufficientitisthe
resultofpositiveexerciseofdiscretionandnormallythesuperiorcourt
should not disturb such finding, much less in regional jurisdiction,
unlesstheexerciseofdiscretionwasonwholeuntenablegroundsor
arbitraryorperverse. Butitisadifferentmatterwhenthefirstcourt
refusestocondonethedelay.Insuchcases,thesuperiorcutwouldbe
freetoconsiderthecauseshownforthedelayafreshanditisopento
suchsuperiorcourttocometoitsownfindingevenuntrammeledby
theconclusionofthelowercourt.
10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary
functionofacourtistoadjudicatethedisputebetweenthepartiesand
to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the
courtindifferentsituationsinnotbecauseontheexpiryofsuchtimea
badcausewouldtransformintoagoodcause.
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in
foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no
presumptionthatdelayinapproachingthecourtisalwaysdeliberate.
ThisCourthasheldthatthewords"sufficientcause"UnderSection5of
theLimitationActshouldreceivealiberalconstructionsoastoadvance
substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari,
MANU/SC/0335/1968:(1969)1SCR1006andStateofWestBengalVs.
The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, MANU/SC/0534/1971 :
(1972)2SCR874a.
13. Itmustberememberedthatineverycaseofdelaytherecanbe
some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not
CS 364/04 .. 5 .. Suit No.4143/85

enoughtoturndownhispleaandtoshutthedooragainsthim.Ifthe
explanationdoesnotsmackofmalafidesoritisnotputforthaspartof
a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the
suitor.Butwhenthereisreasonablegroundtothinkthatthedelaywas
occasionedbythepartydeliberatelytogaintimethenthecourtshould
leanagainstacceptanceoftheexplanation.Whilecondoningdelaythe
Couldshouldnotforgettheoppositepartyaltogether.Itmustbeborne
inmindthatheisalooserandhetoowouldhaveincurredquietalarge
litigationexpenses. Itwouldbeasalutaryguidelinethatwhencourts
condonethedelayduetolachesonthepartoftheapplicantthecourt
shallcompensatetheoppositepartyforhisloss.

9. InviewoftheobservationsoftheHon.SupremeCourtinthecase
referredabove,theexplanationsofferedbytheapplicantforthedelay
caused in taking out the chamber summons are required to be
consideredliberally. Whenitisevidentthatthesubjectmatterofthe
suit is an immovable property and simultaneous of the litigation
betweenthepartieshadbeenpendingbeforetheCourtofSmallCauses
atMumbaianditsAppellateBench,sincetherequestforstayingthe
suit till conclusion of the said proceedings has been made in the
chambersummons,itisnecessarytoverifyastowhatisthesubject
matterinthesuittostaytheproceedingsandwhatarethereliefswhich
are claimed thereunder. Upon perusal of the copy of judgment
dt.25.3.2015inR.A.D.AppealNO.41of2012arisingoutofR.A.D.Suit
No.2637of1985passedbytheHon.AppellateBenchoftheCourtof
Small Causes, Mumbai that by judgment and decree dt.30.8.2001,
R.A.D.SuitNo.2637of1985wasdecreed.Thesaidsuitwastakenout
bythedefendantherein. Beingaggrievedbythesaidjudgmentand
decree,thesaidappealwaspreferredbythepresentapplicantasthe
CS 364/04 .. 6 .. Suit No.4143/85

KartaandManagerofKishanchandP.Gupta,HUF.Thesubjectmatter
inthesaidsuitandtheappealisthesamesuitpropertyasisinvolvedin
thepresentsuit.Thejudgmentanddecreedt.30.8.2001inR.A.DSuit
No.2637of1985hasbeensetasideandsaidsuithasbeendismissed.

10. ThedefendantshavepreferredCivilRevisionApplicationNO.220
of2015beforethe Hon.HighCourtofBombaybeingaggrievedbythe
judgmentanddecree passedbytheAppellate Benchofthe Courtof
SmallCauses,MumbaiandthesameissubjudicebeforetheHon.High
CourtofBombayafterinterimorderswerepassedon21.7.2015and
6.5.2016.

11. In regard with the issue whether upon demise of Karta and
ManagerofHUFthesuitstandsabated,ithastobementionedthat
HUFistreatedtobealegalentityforthelegalpurposeinviewofthe
provisions of codified Hindu Law. Therefore, even if the Karta and
ManagerofHUFdied,someonefromsurvivingcoparcenerdoesstep
intohisshoesasthenextKartaandManagerofsaidHUF.Therefore,
demiseofoneKartaandManagerwouldnotabatethesuit.

12. To support the said proposition the learned Advocate for the
applicanthasrelieduponthe observationsofthe Hon.HighCourtof
Calcutta in the case of Ganeshmull Surana Vs. Nagraj Surana,
MANU/WB/0101/1953:AIR1953Cal294.IthasbeenobservedbyHis
Hon.LordshipofCalcuttaHighCourtafterconsideringtheprovisionsof
codified Hindu Law and the observations in the case of Kedarnath
KanoriaandOrs.,Vs.KhaitanSonsandCo,MANU/WB/0102/1959in
paragraphNos.4,8,9,10,14,16and24that,
4. The Question is Has there been an abatement of the suit. The
CS 364/04 .. 7 .. Suit No.4143/85

answerdependsonthenatureofpropertyinHinduLaw,intheplaint
theallegationbeingthatthejointfamilyfirmactedastheCommission
agent,therighttorecoverthemoneyisinthejointfamily.
8. The joint family arises, where it does arise, at the death of the
common ancestor. After the death of the common ancestor, if the
familychoosestocontinueunited,thereisajointfamily. Theeldest
son,asarule,isthenaturalhead.Buthispositionisnotlikethatofthe
deceased patriarch; the one was head of the family by a natural
authority; theothercanonlybesobyadelegatedauthority. Heis
headbychoice,orbynaturalselection,andnotbyright.Theeldestof
courseisusuallythehead.Butitisnotnecessarythatheshouldbethe
head.Ajuniormemberwhoismorecapableandbettersuitedforthe
postmaybethehead.Theheadofajointfamilyisknownasthe'Karta'
oritsmanagingmember.
9.Thejointfamilymaynothaveanyproperty.Butifithas,itbelongsto
the family which is a corporate body of which the members are
individuals.Theownershipofthecoparcenarypropertyisinthewhole
bodyofthecoparceners.Accordingtothetruenotionofanundivided
family in Hindu Law, noindividual member of that family, whilst it
remainsundivided,canpredicateofthejointandundividedproperty,
that he, that particular member, has a certain definite share. Each
member withhis wifeandchildren isentitledtobemaintainedand
educated out of the family property. But no member can say that
becausesomeothermemberhasgotabiggerfamily,heisentitledtoa
bettermodeoflivingcommensuratewithhisshareintheincomeason
partition.Ifheisdissatisfied,hisremedyistoaskforpartitionButuntil
thenperfectequalityexistsamongthemembersofthefamily,namely,
intheirrighttobemaintained,tobeeducated,etc.,outofthejoint
familypropertybutnomemberhasanyshareinthepropertyorinthe
incomethereof.
10.Deathdoesnotdissolvethefamilynormakeanydifferenceinits
corporatecharacter.Atanyparticularpointoftime,ifthequestionis
asked:whoisthe owneroftheproperty'theanswerwouldbe,'the
jointfamily'.Whoareitsmembers?A,B,C.Iftenyearslater,the
samequestionsareasked,thefirstquestionwillevokethesameanswer
if, in the meantime, there has been no partition; the answer to the
secondquestionmaybeC,D,E,AandBhavingdiedinthemeantime,
andDandEbornintothefamily.Thosewhoareborninthefamilyare
entitledtobemaintainedandeducatedinthesamewayastheother
members.Buttheygetnospecificshareintheproperty.Onthedeath
of a particular member, nothing devolves on his sons as his heirs,
becausethememberhadnoshareorestateinthejointfamilyproperty.
CS 364/04 .. 8 .. Suit No.4143/85

Hissonsareinterestedinthejointfamilypropertynotbecausetheyare
sonsofthedeceasedcoparcener,butbecausetheyaremembersofthe
coparcenary. This is the fundamental characteristic of a Hindu joint
family.Recentlegislation,Idonotthink,hasmadeanychangeinthis
respect.
14. Lord Phillimore delivering the judgment of the Board made the
followingobservation(p.125):
"InthecaseofaHindufamilywhereallhaverights,itisimpossibleto
alloweachmemberofthefamilytolitigatethesamepointoverand
overagain,andeachinfanttowaittillhebecomesofage,andthen
bringanaction,orbringanactionbyhisguardianbefore;&ineachof
thesecases,therefore,theCourtlookstoExpl.6ofSection11,CivilP.
C.(1908)toseewhetherornottheleadingmemberofthefamilyhas
beenactingeitheronbehalfofminorsintheirinterest,oriftheyare
majors,withtheassentofthemajors."
16.Thedecision,inmyview,dependsuponaverybroadprincipleand
thatprincipleIapprehendisthis:thatifapersonhasbylawtherightto
representagroupofpersonsandfilesasuitforthebenefitofallto
enforcearightbelongingtothemcollectively,thenwhateverisdecided
inthesuitisbindingonallthepersonsconcerned:allthosepersonsare
regardedasbeingpartiestothesuit,
24.TheKartahasneitheranyshareintheincomenorintheproperty.It
isthefamily,thecorporatebody,whichistheowneroftheproperty
andifonememberdies,itisstillthefamilythatremainstheowner.If
thatisso,inasuittorecoverjointfamilyproperty,theKartasuingas
suchconductsthesuitonbehalfofthefamily.Hisnameisusedforthe
family.ToborrowanexpressionfromtheLawofPartnership,itisa
compendiouswayofdescribingthefamily.ThedeathoftheKartadoes
not,makeanydifferencetothesuitatall.Thefamilyisthereandthe
nextKartaspringsupandthefamilyisdescribedassuingbysoandso
(thenextKarta).

13. TheratiowhichhasbeenlaiddownbytheHon.HighCourtof
Calcuttainthereportedcasereferredaboveisthat,managingmember
ofthejointfamilyhasrighttorepresententirefamilyinalltransactions.
Inasuit,Kartacanconductthesuitonbehalfofthefamily.Therefore,
uponhisdemisenodifferencewouldoccurtothesuit,butnextKarta
CS 364/04 .. 9 .. Suit No.4143/85

springsuptorepresentthefamilyandthesuitdoesnotstandabate.
However,thesaidjudgmenthasbeenoverruledbythejudgmentinthe
caseofKedarnathKanoriaandOrs.,Vs.KhaitanSonsandCo(referred
above).

14. InviewoftheprovisionsofO.XIIR.1ofC.P.C.noabatementof
thesuitwouldoccuriftherighttosuesurvives.Inthiscasethesubject
matterofthesuitbeinganimmovablepropertyandthereliefssoughtin
the suit being that of recovery of possession thereof along with
compensation or damages, the right to sue survives for the HUF
plaintiff. According to the Art.120 and 121 of schedule to the
LimitationAct,1963thelimitationtobringonrecordthelegalheirsof
deceasedparty,is90daysandtheperiodofsettingasidetheabatement
is60days.

15. TheHon.DivisionBenchofHighCourtofCalcuttainthecaseof
KedarnathKanoriaandOrs.,Vs.KhaitanSonsandCo.hasobservedthat
if at the death of Karta an application for substitution of his legal
representativesisnotmadewithin90days,thesuitabates.Itisfurther
observedthatmembersofthejointfamilythoughrepresentedbyKarta,
arenotpartiestothesuit.Noordercanbemadeagainstthemembers
ofthefamilypersonally.Thosemembersarenotonrecordofthesuit.
Thoughcannotseparatelyappearandpleadintheevenofseparationof
jointfamilyduringthependencyofthesuitandsubsequentdeathofa
separated member, the suit will not be abated. Though the plaintiff
happenstosueasKartaandrepresentativecharacter,heisstillthesole
plaintiffontherecord.Ithasbeenfurtherobservedinthecasethat,it
isunrealistictothinkinacasewherethekartahasbroughtasuiton
behalfofajointfamilyasthespecialrulein,HinduLawallowshimto
CS 364/04 .. 10 .. Suit No.4143/85

do,thatthejointfamilyistheplaintiffandnotthekarta. Thejoint
familyisnotaCorporationorotherlegalentitywhichcanbringasuit
assuch.Ifthekartadoesnotbringasuititwouldbepossibletobringa
suit through all the members of the joint family. If such a suit is
broughtandthereisachangeintheconstitutionofthejointfamily,the
necessarycorrectionhastobemadeintherecord.Where,however,the
kartabringsthesuit,asheisentitledtodo,changesintheconstitution
ofthefamilywillnotnecessitateachangeoftherecord.Itseemsclear
tomethatwhenthekartabringsthesuitastheplaintiff,hecontinues
tobetheplaintiffandistherealplaintiffinspiteofthefactthatheis
bringing the suit on behalf of a joint family... It has been further
observedthat,...Thesuitisasuitbythekartaandifhedies,hislegal
representatives have to be brought on the record within the time
limited by law. Numerous cases have laid down that his legal
representativescanbebroughtontherecord,Icanseenoreasonto
thinkthateventhoughthereissuchalegalrepresentativeassettledby
theauthorities,thesuitcontinuesunaffectedbythedeathofthekarta
inspiteoftheomissiontobringsuchlegalrepresentativesontherecord
withinthetimelimitedbylaw..

16. Inviewoftheabovereferredobservationsofthe Hon.Division

BenchofCalcuttaHighCourtinthecaseofKedarnathKanoria(referred
above) the ratio laid down by the decision in Ganeshmull Surana
(referred above) by the Hon.Single Bench has been overruled. The
observationswhichnowprevailarethat,evenifthesuitisbroughtby
KartaandManagerofHUFforandonbehalfofthefamilyuponhis
demise,hislegalrepresentativesoughttohavebeenboughtonrecord
otherwiseintheothercasesascontemplatedbyArt.120and121ofthe
scheduleofLimitationAct,1963thesuitwouldstandabatedandlegal
CS 364/04 .. 11 .. Suit No.4143/85

heirsoughttohavebeenbroughtonrecordwithinaperiodofthree
monthsor90days.

17. In the present suit the Karta Kishanchand P. Gupta died on

23.10.2001,therefore,suitstoodabatedon21.1.2002. Thechamber
summonshasbeenregisteredon9.3.2004.Itshowsthat,thechamber
summons has been taken out after a considerable delay. No
explanation regarding the delay caused has been offered by the
applicant. The affidavit shows that applicant took over as Karta of
Kishanchand P. Gupta, HUF before 31.7.2002 and thereafter, has
executedDeedofPowerofAttorneyon31.7.2002infavourofPrafula
R.HedeunderthebeliefthatHindiUndividedFamilywouldsurvive
with right to sue on the demise of Karta, no immediate steps were
taken.However,consideringthestandtakenbyapplicant,itwouldbe
justandpropertoaffordthelegalheirsandrepresentativesofdeceased
Karta,anopportunitytoprosecutethesuitonmerits.

18. Thecopiesofjudgmentandorderdt.25.3.2015inR.A.D.Appeal
NO.41of2012showthattheapplicantwasbroughtonrecordaslegal
representative by taking out the notice of motion on 13.3.2004.
Consideringthatthepresentsummonshasalreadybeenmovedduring
thesameperiod,butremainedunattendedforalongtime,inviewof
thependencyoftheproceedingsintheCourtofSmallCauses,Mumbai,
thedelaysocausedcanbecondonedintheinterestofjustice. The
abatementcausedbydemiseofKartaandManagerandtheKartaand
ManageroftheHUFwouldberequiredtobesetasidesincethepresent
suitisregardingimmovablepropertyandrightstosuetheretowhich
havebeensurvivedbythelegalrepresentativesofthedeceasedKartaas
wellasbytheCoparcenersinthefamily. Insuchcircumstances,the
CS 364/04 .. 12 .. Suit No.4143/85

abatementofthesuitdeservestobesetasideandtheamendmentalso
deserves to be allowed to be carried out in the plaint. Hence, the
order:
ORDER
1. ChamberSummonsNo.364of2004ismadeabsoluteon
costs of Rs.5,000/ payable to the D.L.S.A., Mumbai and
Rs.5,000/payabletothedefendant.
2. Theapplicantshallcarryoutnecessaryamendmentsinthe
plainttosubstitutehimselfasthe'KartaandManager'of
'KishanchandP.Gupta,HUF'andtobringonrecordallthe
legal heirs and successors of deceased Kishanchand P.
Gupta,withintwoweeksfromthedateofthisorder.
3. The applicant shall place on record a copy of amended
plaintandsupplycopiesthereoftothedefendants.

(S.E.BANGAR)
Judge,
Dt.:9/3/2017 CityCivilCourt,Gr.Mumbai

Dictatedon :09.3.2017
Transcribedon :10.3.2017
Signedon :

kps/
CS 364/04 .. 13 .. Suit No.4143/85

CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL

SIGNEDJUDGMENT/ORDER

14.3.2017at3.00p.m. (KISHORPRAKASHSHERWADE)
UPLOADDATEANDTIME NAMEOFSTENOGRAPHER

NameoftheJudge HHJ SHRI S.E. BANGAR

(COURTROOMNO.14)
Dateofpronouncementofjudgment/order 9.3.2017
Judgment/ordersignedbyP.O.on 14.3.2017
Judgment/orderuploadedon 14.3.2017