Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 2108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Phool Singh – Appellant
Versus
Randheer Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15185-15186 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 21573-21574 of 2025]
Decided On : 17-12-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Lahoti, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv. Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, AOR Mr. Atul Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Adv. Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Suchita Kumari, Adv. Ms. Shweta Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Shreya Saurabh, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Mishra, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Substitution and abatement – Revision cannot abate as a whole when legal heirs of deceased respondent are desirous to be impleaded in revision.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXII Rule 4 and Order IX Rule 13 – Substitution and abatement – Civil Revision filed against rejection of application for setting aside ex-parte decree – Merely because second respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and revision stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against other respondents – High Court had clearly erred in dismissing civil revision petition as abated merely because legal heirs of one of respondents was not impleaded within time after death of that respondent – Legal heirs also are desirous of appearing in civil revision and agitating their cause – Not only should civil revision be restored, legal heirs of second respondent should also be permitted to be impleaded – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Revision shall be considered on its own merits. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 12)
Facts of the case:
A civil revision, in which there were three respondents, was dismissed as abated, since application to implead legal heirs of deceased second respondent was found to be filed grossly belated.
Findings of Court:
Despite laxity of appellant, revision petitioner, in not having impleaded legal heirs immediately after death of second respondent, who was his uncle, legal heirs of second respondent are entitled to agitate their cause.
Result : Appeals allowed.
| 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 petition is abated as against the second respondent, there is no cause to dismiss the petition as such, since the contesting party was the first respondent, against whom the revision survives.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the entire process is a dilatory tactic, especially, since the direct brother of the appellant was in the party array and the deceased respondent is his uncle. There is no bona fides, even in the submission of the appellant that he came to know of the death only when an affidavit with the details of the legal heirs and intimating the death of the second respondent was brought on record.
5. Immediately we have to notice that the contesting respondent is also the uncle of the appellant. On facts, suffice it to notice that the predecessors of the parties were one Rajdhar Singh whose children were the first respondent, the deceased second respondent and the father of the appellant herein. The first respondent filed a suit against the deceased second respondent and the brother of the appellant who was the nephew. A settlement was entered into on 13.05.1996 and a compromise decree was passed. The terms of the compromise decree having not worked out, the first respondent filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Sironj, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. There was a remand made upon which the learned Civil Judge passed a judgment and decree on 28.02.2003.
6. The appellant herein, the nephew of the first respondent herein and the deceased second respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 [for short the CPC] which stood dismissed. A civil miscellaneous appeal filed as MCA No. 02-02/2007 was rejected on 13.02.2012 against which the revision was filed. In the revision, the parties were the first respondent- Randheer Singh, the plaintiff, the second respondent-Aman Singh, who later died, both of whom were sons of Rajdhar Singh and the third respondent-Kallu @ Kishan Singh, the brother of the appellant. The appellant Phool Singh is also the son of Ratan Singh.
7. The second respondent in the revision died on 26.10.2017 which was brought to the notice of the Court by Annexure P-3 dated 20.04.2022. True, there was substantial delay in filing the application for impleadment along with the application to set aside abatement and condonation of delay occasioned in filing of both the above applications.
8. What is pertinent is that merely because the second respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and the revision stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against the other respondents. The High Court had clearly erred in dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because the legal heirs
