It is seen therefrom that when the defendant dies and the right to sue survives the Court. on an application made in that behalf. shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a Party and shall proceed with the quit. When once the order is made under the above provision, the said order should be given effect to, by recording the necessary names in the cause title of the Pleadings. The Office of the Court might do it either by the, party who obtained the order or. All that is required to be done is to effect he necessary changes in the particulars of the Plaint in substituting the names of the heirs of the deceased. When such change is made or recorded. it cannot be considered, as an amendment of the plaint within the meaning and scope of 0. VI. R.17. Substitution of the legal representatives, of the deceased is made to give effect to the order made by the Court under Order XXII. Rule 3 or 4. Order VI, Rule 17 or order VI, Rule 18 of the Civil P. C., has no application to such situation.
6. My View finds support from the observation in the decision of the Bombay High Court in Aloha Vaisurbhai v. Bhutan Brava. AIR 1937 Born 401. wherein it was observed:
"It was no Part of the appellant's duty to take the necessary steps to carry out the Court's order for the substitution of the names of the heirs of the deceased respondents who were Property served with notices in order to correct the record of the Court in terms of its order. That was a ministerial function, which the Courts establishment was charged to perform. If it was not performed or neglected. the fault would not lie with the appellants."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Civil Revn. Petn. No. 2554 of 1974
Decided On: 22.07.1975
Kariyappa Vs. Patel Rudrappa and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.
Citation : AIR 1976 Kant 29
