A. I. R. 1934 Nagpur 274 , ရှေ့နေခန့်ထားခြင်းအတည်ဖြစ်သောအချိန်

 ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

ရှေ့နေခန့်ထားခြင်းအတည်ဖြစ်သောအချိန် ?

အမှုသည်သေဆုံးပြီးနောက်ရှေ့နေတင်သွင်းသောအယူခံမှုတရားဝင်မဝင်

————————————————-

A. I. R. 1934 Nagpur 274

Mt. Radhabai-Appellant.

               V.

Mangia and others -Respondents.

GRILLE, J. C. AND SUBHEDAR, A. J. C.

အမှုတွင်၊တရားမကျင့်ထုံးဥပဒေအမိန့်၃၊နည်း၄(၂)အရအမှုသည်သက်ရှိထင်ရှားရှိဆဲကာလအတွင်း၌သာလျှင်၊ရှေ့နေခန့်ထားခြင်းသည်အတည်ဖြစ်သည်။

အမှုသည်သေဆုံးသည်နှင့်တပြိုင်နက်ရှေ့နေကိုယ်စားလှယ်စာသည်အလိုအလျောက်ရပ်စဲသည်။

ထို့ကြောင့်အမှုသည်သေဆုံးပြီးနောက်ရှေ့နေတင်သွင်းသောအယူခံမှုသည်တရားမဝင်သည်သာမက၊အယူခံလွှာသည်ပင်လျှင်တည်ရှိမည်မဟုတ်ဟုခုံရုံးကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“It is next argued that in view of Section. 208 and 209, Contract Act the agent's authority did not terminate until the fact of his principal's death became known to him and that even if it had become known to him, he was bound to take all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of the interests entrusted to him. 

Any argument adduced from the law of Contract is inapplicable to the present case, and the short answer is that there is not and can be no contract between a party desiring to prosecute an appeal and the Court before whom such an appeal is to be preferred. 

Even if the conditions laid down in the Contract Act were to be considered applicable, the argument would itself be nullified by the condition in Order 3, Rule 4 (2), Civil P.C, that every appointment of a pleader cases to have force when the client dies. 

If then the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are to be interpreted in terms of the Contract Act, there exists an express provision excepting the authority of pleaders from the terms of Section. 208 and 209, Civil P.C. 

 Under the provisions of Section 153, Civil P.C, a Court may, subject to the provisions of Section 5, Lim. Act, allow the amendment of an appeal against the person who had died before the date of the presentation of the memorandum, although it is found that no appeal in law exists. 

We are however unable to hold that such discretion is available to us where it is sought to substitute a person for the potential appellant who died before the memorandum of appeal was filed, and although we have been shown that the High Courts of Madras and Allahabad and also this, Court had allowed an amendment in the case of a respondent, we are unable to find any authority for the proposition that the amendment can be allowed in the case of an appellant.

The reason for the distinction is clear. 

Although an appeal against a person already deceased is incompetent, the pleader filing such a memorandum of appeal has full power to file a memorandum, ineffective though it is.

In the case before us no power to file a memorandum of appeal existed Under Order. 41, Rule 1, Civil P.C, read with Order 3, Rule 1 ibid, a memorandum has to be filed by the appellant in person or by a specially empowered agent or pleader. 

Under Order 3, Rule 4(2), the appointment of a pleader only remains in force during the lifetime of a client. 

This rule is entirely independent of the question of the power of the agent to appoint a pleader on the termination of the agent's power. 

As soon as a client dies, a pleader has no standing in respect of that client and his power is terminated automatically. 

Not only therefore would an appeal preferred by a pleader on behalf of such a client be incompetent, but the memorandum of appeal itself would be non-existent.”

——————————————————-