The matter can be looked at from another point of view also. Rule 10, Order 30. Civil P.C. provides that a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under any name, may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name, and, in so far as the nature of such case permits, all rules under Order 30 shall apply accordingly. Rule 4 of Order 30. Civil P.C. provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Contract Act, 1872, where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such person dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to joint the legal representatives of the deceased as a party to the suit. It is not disputed that Messrs. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand and Sons was a Joint Hindu family concern and had been sued through its Karta, Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand. In view of the said provision of Rule 4. on the death of the Karta, it was not necessary to bring on record his legal representatives because the joint Hindu family concern continues to be a party in spite of the death of the Karta. So the question of the abatement of the appeal did not arise and the name of the new Karta could be impleaded as a party any time. It is therefore, not possible to sustain the view of the learned single Judge that the appeal had abated on the death of Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand, the Karta of the joint Hindu family concern and the impugned judgment is accordingly reversed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided On: 21.03.1983
Shila Wanti Vs. R.B. Kishore Chand and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. and Satya Parkash Goyal, J.
Citation: AIR 1984 P& H 35
