Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ZAHIRUL ISLAM versus MOHD. USMAN AND ORS.

Decided
20 December 2002
Judges listed
S.S.M. QUADRI, ASHOK BHAN, S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 712 · 2002 INSC 569
Also cited as
  • (2003) 1 SCC 476 (8 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Despite service of notice, none appears for Respondent No. I. Leave is· granted.

p. 712, margin F

This appeal is filed against the order of the High Court at Delhi in Civil Revision Petition No. 25 of 2000 made on January 11, 2000.

p. 712, margin G

The impugned order was passed by the High Court on the application. of the appellant-legal representative of deceased Defendant No.2 who is said A to have died on Ist February, 1995. He sought stay of execution of the decree in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That application was dismissed·. He approached the High Court by filing civil revision petition. The High Court dismissed the revision on the ground that the deceased Defendant No.2 had not chosen to appear before the trial court and the matter proceeded ex-parte during his liftetime. The order of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.

pp. 712–713, margin G

It would be necessary to refer to Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, insofar as it relevant, which reads as under:

p. 713, margin B

"4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.- (I) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a wr!tten statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said.defendant notwithstanding the death of such ·defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has heen pronounced before the death took place."

p. 713, margin B

A perusal of sub-rule (4), extracted above, shows that a plaintiff may be exempted from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of a defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing and that, in such a case, the judgment may be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and it shall have the same force and effect as if the judgment has been pronounced before the death took place.

p. 713, margin E

In the instant case, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no permission contemplated under sub-rule (4) was obtained from the court exempting the plaintiff from bringing on record the legal representative of deceased Defendant J:-Jo.2. From the order under challenge also, it does not appear that any such permission was sought or granted by the Court. In this view of the matter, the order under challenge cannot be A sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to be brought on record in the suit.

pp. 713–714, margin F

The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

p. 714

No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 714

..

p. 714

i. '

p. 714