Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Parasram – Respondent
No.
The Supreme Court did not clarify that substitution and setting aside abatement are governed by a combined time frame under Order XXII CPC and the Limitation Act, nor did it link these to ensuring procedural compliance without defeating substantive justice. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Instead, the Court noted separate limitation periods: 90 days under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for substitution (from the date of death on 19.08.2015) and 60 days under Article 121 for setting aside abatement, both expiring by January 2016. (!)
The Court upheld rejection of condonation applications filed in 2022 (after abatement declared on 21.02.2022), as no sufficient cause was shown despite death notice given on 04.04.2016 and familial ties implying knowledge. Power to condone under Order XXII Rule 9 exists but was not exercised here due to unexplained delay. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Focus was on factual non-compliance leading to full abatement of the joint appeal, without broader procedural clarifications or justice-balancing rhetoric. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relevant facts of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. facts surrounding the initial suit and subsequent appeals. (Para 4) |
| 3. submissions of parties regarding the appeal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's exploration of legal principles regarding abatement and substitution. (Para 8) |
| 5. court's analysis on legal infirmity. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 15) |
| 6. conclusions drawn regarding the nature of the appeal in relation to abatement. (Para 11) |
| 7. summary of legal principles governing abatement. (Para 17 , 38) |
| 8. final decision and order of the court. (Para 39) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from Civil Suit No. 13 of 1983 (renumbered 16A of 1997), which was dismissed by the trial court and decreed by the first appellate court. On second appeal1 [Second Appeal No. 446 of 2001] before the High Court2 [The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior] by the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, the appeal of the appellants herein was declared to have abated due to non-substitution of the legal representatives (for short LRs) of Ram Babu (i.e. appellant no. 2 in the second appeal) within time. By the second impugned order dated 04.08.2022, the High Court rejected the applications
The abatement of an appeal due to non-substitution of a deceased co-appellant leads to the entire appeal being dismissed if it involves a joint decree that may result in conflicting decisions.
Rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and brining on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be a just o....
Point of law: Decree in Suit – Abatement of Appeal - In cases where an appellate Court has made an order dispensing with service of notice of appeal upon legal representatives of any person deceased ....
The non-substitution of legal representatives does not lead to abatement if an application for substitution is timely granted.
Abatement of an appeal under CPC is not automatic upon death if the right to sue survives; presence of a legal representative allows continuation despite procedural delays.
(1) Substitution – Limitation – Suit/appeal automatically abates when application to substitute legal representatives of deceased party is not filed within prescribed limitation period of 90 days fro....
Courts should adopt a liberal approach to substitution and abatement to prioritize substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
