<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (10) TMI 75 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194040</link>
    <description>A suit under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is representative in character because it is brought for the benefit of the spouse, parents and children of the deceased, even if filed in the name of one legal representative alone. Treating it like a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the death of one representative party does not attract abatement under Order 22. The court distinguished a joint decree situation and held that the real issue was whether the deceased respondent&#039;s legal representatives and other interested persons could be brought on record so the appeal could continue. The objection based on abatement was overruled and substitution was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:37:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (10) TMI 75 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194040</link>
      <description>A suit under section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is representative in character because it is brought for the benefit of the spouse, parents and children of the deceased, even if filed in the name of one legal representative alone. Treating it like a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the death of one representative party does not attract abatement under Order 22. The court distinguished a joint decree situation and held that the real issue was whether the deceased respondent&#039;s legal representatives and other interested persons could be brought on record so the appeal could continue. The objection based on abatement was overruled and substitution was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>