Back
MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Kishorilal (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Gopal – Respondent
The legal document clarifies that the principle of res judicata applies to different stages within the same litigation, meaning that once a matter has been decided, it cannot be re-agitated in subsequent stages if it has already been conclusively determined (!) . It emphasizes that the non-substitution of heirs or legal representatives of a deceased party does not necessarily lead to abatement of the proceedings, provided that the interest of the deceased is sufficiently represented by other parties already on record (!) (!) (!) .
In particular, the document highlights that a mistake in deleting a party’s name from the record, which is subsequently rectified, does not constitute a ground for abatement if the interest of the deceased is otherwise adequately represented (!) (!) . Furthermore, the court has discretion to allow the impleadment of heirs or legal representatives at any stage, and such actions do not require condonation of delay if the appeal has not legally abated (!) (!) .
Overall, the conclusion is that the appeal in question was not abated due to non-substitution of certain heirs, and procedural errors such as clerical mistakes can be corrected without affecting the substantive rights of the parties. The courts have the authority to permit the addition of heirs or legal representatives and to continue proceedings, provided that the interests of the parties are sufficiently represented. Consequently, the orders dismissing the appeals as having abated are incorrect, and the appeals should be restored and decided on their merits.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
SLP (C) No. 36787 of 2017
1. Leave granted.
Facts giving rise to appeal (i.e. SLP (C) No. 36787 of 2017)
2. This appeal arises from Original Suit No. 5A of 1992 which was instituted by Gopal (first respondent) against Kishorilal (i.e. first appellant (since deceased), who is now represented through his LRs.1 [Legal Representatives]) inter alia, for declaration and injunction and, later, by way of amendment, for specific performance of agreement to purchase the suit scheduled property. During pendency of the suit, Brajmohan and Manoj (i.e. the appellants in the connected appeal), purchased the suit property from Kishorilal, vide sale-deed dated 20.04.1992.
3. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 18.10.2000. Aggrieved therewith, Kishorilal and the transferees lis pendens, namely, Brajmohan and Manoj, jointly filed appeal (i.e. F.A. No. 213 of 2000) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.2 [High Court] During pendency of the appeal, Kishorilal died on 17.12.2005. Therefore, vide order dated 10.07.2006, his LRs, namely: (i) Suresh, (ii) Murarilal, (iii) Prakash and (iv) Sitabai were substituted as appellants No. 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4), respec
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law by subsequent decisions. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "abrogated" associated with any of these cases. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no case is identified as bad law.
[Followed/Consistent Treatment]
None of the cases explicitly mention being followed or reaffirmed in subsequent rulings within the provided text. However, the detailed descriptions suggest these are considered authoritative or settled principles within their respective contexts.
[Neutral or Unspecified Treatment]
[Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment]
All cases are presented with descriptive summaries that do not reference subsequent judicial treatment such as overruling or criticism. Without explicit mention of subsequent treatment, their current legal standing remains unclarified based on this data.
All cases are treated as explanatory or procedural principles without explicit indication of subsequent judicial treatment. Therefore, their treatment status is uncertain; they are neither confirmed as overruled nor reaffirmed.
The absence of references to later overruling or criticism means we cannot definitively categorize any as bad law or otherwise negatively treated based solely on this information.
**Source :** K. Naina Mohamed (Dead) through L. Rs. VS A. M. Vasudevan Chettiar (Dead) through L. Rs. - Supreme Court Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap VS Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar - Supreme Court Mohammad Arif VS Allah Rabbul Alamin - Supreme Court Mithailal Dalsangar Singh VS Annabai Devram Kini - Supreme Court Mahabir Prasad VS Jage Ram - Supreme Court R. C. Chandiok VS Chuni Lal Sabharwal - Supreme Court Satyadhyan Ghosal VS Deorajin Debi - Supreme Court Shivshankara VS H. P. Vedavyasa Char - Supreme Court Bhure Khan VS Yaseen Khan - Supreme Court Y. B. Patil VS Y. L. Patil - Supreme Court Dwarka Prasad Singh VS Harikant Prasad Singh - Supreme Court Durga Prasad VS Deep Chand - Supreme Court Bhanu Kumar Jain VS Archana Kumar - Supreme Court
(1) Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in same litigation.(2) Impleadment of necessary party – Vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance ....
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.
Abatement of appeal – Whole appeal will not abate in all cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appeal should not be abated in its entirety if an earlier order had already been passed abating the appeal only with respect to one party.
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....
In a suit for specific performance of a joint and indivisible contract, the death of one of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit abates the suit in its entirety if the legal representatives....
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
