Timely application for substitution of deceased parties is necessary to prevent abatement, and negligence in pursuing an appeal justifies the court's decision to uphold abatement.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The instant civil miscellaneous application is preferred in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 198/2008, which was dismissed in abatement on 07-11-2024.

2. Besides the present Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1/2025, 2/2025, 3/2025 and 4/2025 have also been preferred, and we are deciding all the applications by a common order.

3. Brief facts of the matter are that S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 198/2008 was preferred by the appellants Arjun Singh, Laxmi Chand, legal heirs of Daulat Singh (Harpyari and Lakhanlal) and Harveer Singh against the judgment dated 26-04-2008 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 88/2002 (75/2002), decided by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bayana, District Bharatpur. Originally, a civil suit was filed by Janglia (since dead) against Arjun Singh, Laxmi Chand, Daulat Singh and Harveer Singh for specific performance of contract before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bayana, District Bharatpur, but the same was dismissed on 14-01-1999. Aggrieved plaintiff Janglia filed a first appeal, which was allowed on 26-04-2008 and the suit was decreed.

4. During pendency of Second Appeal No. 198/2008, which was pending for admission, the matter was listed before this Court on 07-11-2024. It has come to the notice that the sole respondent/plaintiff Janglia had expired on 24-07-2019, whereas Appellant No. 1 Arjun Singh and Appellant No. 3/1 Harpyari and 3/2 Lakhanlal, both being legal heirs of Daulat Singh, had also expired about 5–6 years before, and no efforts were made to bring their legal representatives on record. Therefore, this Court abated the appeal as a whole.

5. After the order, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Application under Order XXII, Rules 9 and 11, read with Section 151 of the CPC, was filed on 27-03-2025 for setting aside the abatement. Application No. 1/2025 was filed under Order XXII, Rule 4, CPC, for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Janglia, in the civil second appeal. Application No. 2/2025 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the CPC. Application No. 3/2025 was filed under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Appellant No. 1 Arjun Singh, Appellant No. 3/1 Harpyari and Appellant No. 3/2 Lakhanlal. Application No. 4/2025 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the civil miscellaneous application under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the CPC. Along with these applications, an amended cause title was also filed.

6. The material on record clearly indicates that the civil second appeal preferred by the appellants had not been admitted till date, and on 07-11-2024, no one was present on behalf of the surviving appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Binod Pathak & Ors. Vs. Shankar Chaudhary & Ors. reported as 2025 INSC 842 , submitted that the rationale behind the provision under Order XXII, Rule 10-A is that the counsel appearing on behalf of a party shall intimate the Court about the death of the party along with the proposed legal representatives, and in the instant case, no such application was filed by the counsel for the respondent. He further submitted that Order XXII, Rule 9 is a beneficial provision and when the legal representatives or other surviving parties are able to justify their absence on a particular day and also justify the reasons for delay, the application for condonation of delay is required to be considered liberally. He further sub