Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, RENU BHATNAGAR
Late J.P. Gupta (Through His Lr.) Sunil Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Bosch Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and the claim for recovery. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's observations and reasoning on the applications. (Para 11 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant regarding abatement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. principles guiding the court for setting aside abatement. (Para 21 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 35 , 36) |
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
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.
Substitution of deceased parties in civil proceedings requires adherence to strict timelines under the CPC and affording notice to legal representatives, failing which valuable rights may be compromi....
Abatement of an appeal under CPC is not automatic upon death if the right to sue survives; presence of a legal representative allows continuation despite procedural delays.
Counsel must notify the court of a party's death and provide legal heirs' details; failure leads to abatement under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC.
The main legal point established is that the timely filing of applications under Order XXII Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the CPC is crucial, and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. Negligence ....
Delay/Laches/ limitation - Sufficient cause – Meaning of - The expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision s....
No specific order for abatement of proceedings under one or other provisions of Order 22 is envisaged and the abatement takes place on its own force by passage of time.
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
