Procedural laws must be interpreted liberally to ensure substantive rights are upheld in the context of setting aside abatement due to a party's death, emphasizing justice over technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. 10423/2023 in CS(OS) 135/2006, titled ‘Bosch limited v. M/S Guptajee Engineers & Ors.’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to set aside the abatement of Suit qua the appellant herein in terms of Order XXII Rule 9 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’).

Brief Facts

2. The respondent company had filed the abovesaid Suit for recovery against the Late Shri J.P. Gupta/defendant no. 2 as a proprietor of M/s Guptajee Engineers (defendant no. 1), praying for the following reliefs:

“(a) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff Company and against the Defendants for a sum of Rs. 1,03,78,709.76 (Rupees One Crore Three Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine and Paise Seventy Six Only) along with interest @ 19% from, December 1, 2005, till realisation;

(b) Award costs of the present suit to the Plaintiff Company.”

3. In the plaint, the respondent no. 1- company has asserted that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of spark plugs, fuel injection equipment and other auto parts/ accessories. The respondent no. 1 claims that the respondent company supplied several consignments of equipment to the defendant no.1/partnership firm in the original Suit, and after dispatch, raised invoices for the same.

4. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 that since the defendants failed to make payments against the invoices raised by the respondent company, on respective due dates, the respondent company issued a notice dated 04.04.2005 calling upon the defendants therein to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

5. Thereafter, since the defendants therein failed to make the said payments, the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1 herein filed the above Suit for recovery of Rs. One Crore Three Lacs Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine Rupees and Seventy-Six Paisa only.

6. The Late Shri J.P. Gupta filed his Written Statement in the Suit, on or around 30.07.2012 inter alia stating that the Partnership Firm, which was impleaded as defendant no.1, had been dissolved on 31.03.2006, that is, before the institution of the Suit and the business of the Partnership Firm was taken over by the him as the sole proprietor. Consequently, the name of defendant no. 3/Shri M.K. Gupta, erstwhile partner of the Partnership Firm was deleted. Late Shri J.P. Gupta also set up a claim for set-off against the plaintiff/respondent no.1.

7. The issues were framed in the above-mentioned Suit on 17.03.2016, however, during the course of the proceedings of the Suit, Late Shri J.P. Gupta unfortunately passed away on 16.02.2021.

8. It is asserted by the appellant that the said Suit abated qua the Late Shri J.P. Gupta/defendant no. 2.

9. It is the case of the appellant that the plaintiff/respondent no.1, on 27.09.2022 filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC seeking substitution/impleadment of LR’s of Late Shri J.P. Gupta, albeit, without an application under Order XXII Rule 9(2) seeking setting aside of the abatement of the Suit qua Late Shri J.P. Gupta. It was only on 20.05.2023, that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed the application seeking setting aside of abatement of Suit qua Late Shri J.P. Gupta, along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the abovesaid application.

10. The plaintiff/respon