Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University Case held that if there is a case that contains Rule 3 and Rule 4 as its subject, then in such a case if there has been no application attached to call legal representatives of a deceased individual within the time slot allotted by the Court, then it leads to a pre-programmed lessening of the case the procedure of which has already been stated in Rule 9 of the Code.
In the said matter, the appellant Mr. Dhurandhar Prasad Singh, due to which a revision application was allowed, questioned a judgment delivered by the Patna High Court regarding objections rejection, as per the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1973.
Through this matter, Court decided that if there is a transfer of interests while pendency of a matter then by the discretion of the court, then such a case may be carried on or in opposition of the parties on whom such interest it has transferred.
This further states that any person who has attained transfer of interests based upon the matter in question in the litigation through either creation or decentralization of interests, the appellant or any interested individual may apply before for leave before the honorable court to continue the suit.
However, the court clarifies that it is not a compulsory obligation that needs to take place.
BENCH: Justice G.B. Pattanaik & B.N. Agrawal
- The appellant Mr. Dhurandhar attained the position of Routine-cum-Examination a Clerk in Ganga Singh College (GSC) which was affiliated to Bihar University on the 8th of January 1977. The Principal of the said college appointed him upon this position.
- However, after the completion of the constitution of the Governing body order was passed with the effect of terminating the services of the appellant which violated the Statues of the Bihar University.
- Before coming to any conclusion in the said matter, the court viewed/laid emphasis on some judgments that were made by the House of Lords in order to understand the concept more distinctly. These judgements were as follows–
- In re McC. (A minor)  1 Appeal Cases 528, the House of Lords
- Director of Public Prosecutions v. Head  Appeal Cases 83, House of Lords
Based upon the submission of the respondents, few questions were formulated before the honorable court. These questions were:
- Whether in a matter of devolution of interest under Order 22 of Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure a decree passed against the predecessor in interest in absence of the successor in interest would cause an effect of nullifying the decree?
- Can an application for seeking leave of the court provided under Order 22 Rule 10 under law prescribes to be filled by the party alone (upon whom interest may have devolved during the pendency of the matter) or any other person can fill it also?
- The matter of Dhurandhar Prasad v/s Jai Prasad University became a landmark judgment in the Indian Judicial System because of the important impact it holds upon every one of us. Because of this matter, it was clarified that while enacting Rules 3, 4, and 10 the legislation laid down definitions clarifying each of them partly.
- Therefore, if there is a case that contains Rule 3 and Rule 4 as its subject, then in such a case if there has been no application attached to call legal representatives of a deceased individual within the time slot allotted by the Court, then it leads to a pre-programmed lessening of the case the procedure of which has already been stated in Rule 9 of the Code.
- However, the cases which contain Rule 10 as their subject, for such cases the legislation has prescribed no sort of method regarding situations where there is a failure in applying or application for leave before the Court, then such a case may be carried on or in opposition of the parties on whom such interest has been transferred during the pendency of the matter.
- It also clarifies that during the formulation of the same the legislation was well aware of the scenarios and yet it could not illustrate that failure would cause the dismissal of the case because it was planned that any further step would take place either by or against the original party regardless of the fact that he/she didn’t have any interest in the subject of the litigation dispute. Thus, in situations where there is a failure in applying for leave either by or in opposition of the parties upon whom such interest has transferred.
The conclusion of the above discussion in the Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University Case states that the High Court did not improve the matter by allowing demur as per section 47 of the Code.
The result of which is that the appeal challenged the passed an order of the High Court was set aside and that by the executing Court restored. In such a scenario, we state the parties shall bear their own costs.