Back
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Phool Singh – Appellant
Versus
Randheer Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the parties and procedural history (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. allegation of dilatory tactics in proceedings (Para 4) |
| 3. restoration of the civil revision despite abatement (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. entitlement of legal heirs to intervene (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion and directions for the appeal (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. A civil revision, in which there were three respondents, was dismissed as abated, since the application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent was found to be filed grossly belated.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that true, a mistake occurred on the part of the counsel for the appellant, insofar as not having taken steps to implead the legal heirs at the proper time. The intimation of the death of the second respondent and the details of the legal heirs were brought on record by the counsel for the deceased respondent as early as in 2022, evident from Annexure P-3, indicating the death having occurred on 26.10.2017. The application to implead the legal heirs along with the application to set aside the abatement and condonation of delay occasioned was filed only on 27.02.2024. Even if the revision p
Substitution and abatement – Revision cannot abate as a whole when legal heirs of deceased respondent are desirous to be impleaded in revision.
Court emphasized procedural justice to avoid multiplicity of proceedings while permitting legal heirs to be included post-death of a party.
The court clarified that a petition to bring on record legal representatives of a deceased party does not automatically lead to abatement of the suit against surviving parties if justified causes for....
Legal heirs of deceased are necessary parties in suits over self-acquired property; impleadment allowed at appellate stage to prevent multiplicity.
Delay in filing an application to implead legal representatives requires justifiable reasons, and knowledge of a party's death does not negate the need for timely action.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion to condone a significant delay due to the petitioners' layman status, affirming that procedural matters can be addressed during final hearings.
The main legal point established is the need for substantial justice in delay condonation petitions, the importance of not adopting a hyper-technical approach, and the need to advance justice in such....
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
