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.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Application is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff for restoration of S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.76/2020 titled as ‘ Ram Gupta Vs. Arjun Lal ’ which was dismissed in abatement on 02.12.2024, after setting aside abatement.

2. By this order, we are also disposing of Application Nos.1/2025, 2/2025 and CMCC No.567/2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant- appellant-plaintiff has preferred a Second Appeal No.76/2020 after dismissal of First Appeal No.19/2007 on 21.10.2019 by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. He further submitted that initially, the present appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction, determination of standard rent and permanent injunction against tenant Arjun Lal (since deceased) on ground of default in payment of rent and personal and bona fide need but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the Appellate Court without considering the legal issues has also dismissed the first appeal under Section 96 of CPC. He further submitted that aggrieved from said judgment, he has preferred the second appeal which was pending before this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that on 15.12.2020 the Hon’ble Court has directed issuance of notice to respondent and a power is filed on behalf of the respondent-defendant. He also submitted that the appeal was liable for admission but unfortunately same is not admitted. He further submitted that on 16.11.2023, an incomplete application about information of death of defendant is filed by the counsel for the respondent but no information about the legal heirs is filed. He further submitted that on 02.12.2024, this Hon’ble Court has abated the appeal as sole respondent had expired on 01.01.2023.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the duty lies upon the counsel to intimate without any delay about the death of a party along with details of legal heirs but same has not been submitted in accordance with Rule 10A of Order 22 of CPC. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Ram Ratan Gupta Vs. Sarju Narain and Ors. : 1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 597 and submitted that when application is incomplete and submitted without any details of legal representatives of deceased then the suit cannot be abated. He further referred and relied upon judgment in case of Sooka Lal (Dead through LRs) Vs. Kishan and Anr. : 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 619 and submitted that the applicant is entitled for condonation of delay in filing application. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Binod Pathak and Ors. Vs. Shankar Choudhary and Ors. : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1411 and submitted that the intimation application is not sufficient for compliance under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC, therefore, application for setting aside of abatement is liable to be allowed and legal heir of defendant be substituted after condonation of delay.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that as a counsel of defendant soon after the knowledge of death, he has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC and there is no duty casted upon him to furnish any details of legal representatives of deceased. He further referred a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Gurjala Bharathi and Ors. Vs. Vgindhya Corporatioi and Ors. : MANU/AP/0699/2007 and submitted that there is no obligation upon the counsel to furnish details of legal representatives. He further submits that after death of defendant (tenant),