Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekar Devesa, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Rudraksh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishant Anand, Adv. Mrs. Gunjan Bansal Anand, Adv. Mr. Anushasit Arya, Adv. Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Shakib, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sury, Adv. Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR Mrs. Sunita Singh, Adv.

Key Points: - The judgment lays down the proper sequence: substitution within 90 days of death, then setting aside abatement within 60 days, with condonation only after 150 days; total 150 days timeline (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that condonation of delay is considered for setting aside abatement, not for substitution within the initial 90 days, emphasizing liberal, justice-oriented approach (!) (!) (!) . - The court recognizes a justice-oriented interpretation allowing substitution deeds filed by heirs of one deceased party to count as substitution for the deceased party if a notice of death has been conveyed and the heirs are brought on record, and it rejects a rigid requirement that only the plaintiff can file substitution after death (Ram Charan principle) (!) (!) (!) . - Rule 10-A of Order XXII CPC imposes a duty on counsel to inform the court of a party’s death; failure to strictly follow does not necessarily invalidate substitution if information is sufficiently conveyed, and notice to the opposing party is essential for enabling substitution (!) (!) . - The Court sets aside abatement where there is non-diligence by the party but where there is sufficient cause and where the heirs of the deceased have moved for substitution and setting aside abatement, restoring the appeals on merits (!) (!) (!) . - The decision allows restoration and substitution even where an earlier abatement order existed, holding that the abatement can be set aside in the interest of justice if proper substitution applications are on record or read within substitution prayers (!) (!) (!) . - The judgments emphasize a liberal approach to setting aside abatement and restoring appeals to enable adjudication on merits, rather than foreclosure due to technicalities (!) (!) (!) . - The conclusions in Civil Appeal No. 13407 set aside abatement and allow substitution of Satish Chandra’s heirs; Civil Appeal No. 13408 similarly sets aside abatement and grants substitution for Rooprani’s heirs (!) (!) . - The Court recommends prioritizing these second appeals for adjudication in the High Court, given the long pendency and death of original parties (!) .

What is the proper sequence and time limits for substitution and setting aside abatement under Order XXII CPC and Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act?

What are the conditions and factors deemed sufficient to condone delay or set aside abatement in cases where death of a party occurs during the pendency of an appeal?

What constitutes a valid substitution of heirs/legal representatives of a deceased party in a second appeal, and can an application by heirs of one party suffice when death of another party is already notified?