Judgment rendered in favor of a deceased party is a nullity; automatic abatement occurs on death without the need for court orders.

ORDER

Review Petitioners are the additional respondents 2 and 4 in S.A.No.687/1999. The second appeal was filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment in A.S.No.57/1989 on the files of the Additional District Court, Kottayam arising from O.S.No.134/1986 of the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Kottayam.

2. The second appeal was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 6.9.2018. Seeking review of the said judgment, this petition was filed on various grounds. Nevertheless, at the time of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that only the ground pertaining to the demise of the additional second appellant before the date of judgment is pressed. The parties were therefore heard only on the said aspect. Hence, detailed narration of the facts is not required.

3. As noted above, the second appeal was allowed on

6.9.2018. However, the second appellant, Rev.Thomas Philip had expired on 28.3.2013. The demise of the 2^nd appellant was not brought to the notice of this Court and the legal representatives did not get impleaded in the second appeal. Thus, this Court happened to pass the judgment without noticing that the 2^nd appellant was no more.

4. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that with the death of the 2^nd appellant the appeal automatically abated. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the second appeal is a nullity as the same was passed in favour of a dead person. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Budh Ram and Others v. Bansi and others [ (2010) 11 SCC 476 ]. The learned counsel invited attention of the Court to the following observations in the judgment:-

“10. Abatement takes place automatically by application of law without any order of the court. Setting aside of abatement can be sought once the suit stands abated. Abatement in fact results in denial to hearing of the case on merits. Order 22 Rule 1 CPC deals with the question of abatement on the death of the plaintiff or of the defendant in a civil suit. Order 22 Rule 2 relates to procedure where one of the several plaintiffs or the defendants die and the right to sue survives. Order 22 Rule 3 CPC deals with procedure in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs or of the sole plaintiff. Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, however, deals with procedure in case of death of one of the several defendants or of the sole defendant. Sub-rule (3)

of Rule 4 makes it crystal clear that:

“4. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.””

5. He submitted that the original appellant in the second appeal, Rev.Mathew Kaparambil expired after filing the appeal and then the 2^nd appellant, Rev.Thomas Philip Marankollil got impleaded as per order dated 28.6.2002 in C.M.P.No.32/2001. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that the deceased 2^nd appellant himself had got impleaded on the death of the original appellant and hence the respondents cannot be permitted to contend that on the death of the 2^nd appellant no impleadment was required. He hence submitted that the judgment in the second appeal may be reviewed and set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent on the other hand submitted that the appeal was filed by the Bishop on behalf of the Diocese and the Diocese being a juristic person, no abatement would result on the death of the Bishop. He contended that notwithstanding the demise of the 2^nd appellant, the appeal deserved to be heard and disposed of. Hence, though the demise of the 2^nd appellant was not brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment in the second appeal is lawful. He hence submitted that the review cannot be allowed on the ground that the 2^nd appellant was no more when th