2015 (6) TMI 1253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leaded as defendant No.2. However, the plaintiff filed said application under Section 151 CPC contending that Basant Lal Jain has already expired. Plaintiff is not aware about the names of his legal representatives. In this view of the matter, the name of Shri Basant Lal Jain be deleted. 3. Prayer was opposed by filing reply dated 20.4.2015 (Annexure P-6). It is contended in the reply that there is no legal provision to delete the name of dead defendant. In nutshell, application was opposed. The Court below allowed the said application by accepting the contention of the plaintiff. 4. Criticizing the order, shri K.N.Gupta, learned senior counsel submits that as per Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., such deletion is not permissible. The only c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner by the impugned order. Thus, I am unable to hold that the Court below has committed any error in permitting the deletion of the name of said defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. It cannot be forgotten that the procedural law is made for smooth functioning. It is not made to strangulate the litigants on hyper technical grounds. This Court has considered this aspect in a recent judgment reported in 2014(3) M.P.L.J. 612 (Dataram Singh & others Vs. Brindawan Singh and others) and opined as under:- "In the opinion of this Court, the court below has taken a view to advance the cause of justice and did not permit itself to be strangulated by hypertechnicalities. This is settled in law that all the rules of procedure are the handmai....