The main legal point established in the judgment is that the death of one or more legal representatives would not result in abatement as long as the surviving representatives were on record and could collectively represent the interest of the deceased party.

All the misc cases arose out of Second Appeal No. 9 of 1982 having its chequered history. The Original Suit 12 of 1976 was filed by 14 plaintiffs, the successor in interest of one Thokchom Himaloi Singh (shortly Himaloi) against sole defendant Mutum Leiren Singh on 11.3.1976. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court, sole defendant died and his legal representatives, 10 in number had been substituted vide order dated 20.11.1978.

2. Suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession by evicting the defendant from immovable property. The suit was decreed on 1.4.1981. The legal representatives of sole defendant preferred first appeal in Civil Appeal No.8 of 1981 and the District Judge allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 31.5.1982, against which the second appeal has been preferred by the 12 plaintiffs making 2 plaintiffs as proforma respondents on 20.9.1982.

3. During the pendency of this second appeal the appellant No.7 died on 6.2.94 for which a petition under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC has been filed by this legal representatives in Civil Misc No.81 of 1996 along with a condonation petition in Misc No.80 of 1996 on 26.11.1996.

(a) Respondent No. 1 died on 19.2.1996 for which the appellants filed petition seeking substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC in Civil Misc 79 of 1996 on 26.11.1996 along with condonation petition in Civil Misc 78 of 1996.

(b) The proforma respondent No. 12 died on 27.11.96 and his legal heirs filed petition seeking substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 21.11.2000 in Civil Misc 64 of 2000 along with condonation petition in Civil Misc 62 of 2000.

4. The appellants also filed a petition in Civil Misc 63 of 2000 on 21.12.2000 informing the death of appellant No. 10 (died on 8.10.99) with further intimation that the said appellant No. 10 died unmarried/issueless.

5. The respondent No.2 filed a petition on 29.8.1999 in Civil Misc 47 (A) of 1999 seeking for recording the abatement of the appeal.

6. Since all the civil misc petitions pertain to sole question to decide as to whether the second appeal stood abated due to the death of appellant No.7 (died on 6.2.94) due to death of respondent No. 1 (died on 19.2.1996), due to death of proforma respondent No. 12 (died on 27.11.96) and due to death of appellant No.10 (died on 8.10.99) and also whether the legal representatives of those dead appellant/respondent could be allowed to be added as party as prayed for and, as such, for convenience sake all these petitions are taken together, as agreed by the parties, for analogous hearing and disposal by the common order.

7. Under afore mentioned back drop, the provisions and applicability of related rules under Order 22 CPC are to be the examined/appreciated. A combined reading of Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Order 22 CPC visualise that in the event of death of plaintiff or defendant (hereinafter referred to as party) in any suit appeal or revision (hereinafter referred as proceeding), the proceeding would stand abated unless the right to prosecute/defence survives and the legal representative (s) is/are substituted within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act.

8. But a question arises before the Court as to whether death of one or other of the numerous already substituted legal representatives (LRs) would result in abatement of the proceeding in the event of non substitution of the heirs of those dead LRs to the proceeding or the proceeding would continue at the instant of the surviving LR (s) of the original party already on record and also as to whether the heirs of those dead LR (s) could be permitted to be either substituted or be added as a party simpliciter to the proceeding.

9. In the present case the sole defendant died during the pendency of the trial and his legal heirs 10 in numbers were lawfully substituted. Now, during the pendency of the appeal one LR viz respondent No. 1 died having left the remaining 9 LRs of the original defendant alive. In this situation, whether t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document