Key Points:- The court treated the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC as an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to permit amendments regarding deceased respondent No.20. (!) - Respondent No.20 died prior to the institution of the suit; thus, substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 was not maintainable, but could be treated under Order 1 Rule 10 for justice. (!) (!) - The decision discusses applicability of Order 22 Rule 4 vs.Order 1 Rule 10 and inherent powers under Section 151 to avoid abatement and ensure proper representation. (!) (!) - The court references the need to allow amendments and substitutions to carry out justice, treating misnaming or mis-application of provisions flexibly. (!) (!) - The final order permits amendments and substitutions for deceased respondents (e.g., respondent No.20) within specified time, under the umbrella of Order 1 Rule 10 and ancillary orders under Section 151. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment notes that death before suit does not necessarily bar rights in partition suits, and abatement considerations may be mitigated by allowed substitutions. (!) (!) (!) - The court allowed substitutions for respondents 6, 35, and deletion of appellant 4’s name, illustrating practical applications of these principles. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

How to treat an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC as an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for substitution of legal representatives?What is the court’s stance on maintaining or treating substitutions of deceased parties when death occurred prior to the institution of suit?What are the rights and remedies of plaintiffs to bring on record legal representatives of deceased defendants under the cited CPC provisions?