The death of proforma respondents does not lead to abatement, and the substitution of their legal representatives can be allowed even after the limitation period without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the death occurred during the COVID-19 period.

Headnote:
SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - ABATEMENT - COVID-19 - LIMITATION ACT - PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order allowing the substitution of legal representatives for deceased respondents in a civil appeal. The respondents included one who died during the COVID-19 period and three who died earlier.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the substitution of the legal representative for the respondent who died during COVID-19 was valid without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as per the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation in Misc. Application No.665/2021 dtd.23.09.2021.
Issues: Whether the substitution of legal representatives for deceased respondents was valid, particularly considering the timeliness of the applications and the impact of COVID-19.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mangal Singh and Ors. vs. Smt. Rattno (Dead) by her Legal Representatives and anr. AIR 1967 SC 1786, which held that no abatement occurs when proforma respondents die.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing the substitution of legal representatives for all four deceased respondents.

ORDER

This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner/one of the plaintiffs-Harilal challenging the order dtd.17.01.2023 passed by District Judge, Rajendragram, District Anuppur in civil appeal No.20-A/2018 whereby substitution application filed in respect of respondents 2-Gokul, 7-Khorai, 8- Bajrahin and 9-Tiharia has been allowed, permitting the appellants to substitute legal representatives in place of the aforesaid respondents.

2 . Leaned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff-Harilal Charmkar submits that although death of respondent 2-Gokul took place during covid-19 period, but other respondents 7, 8 & 9 had died long back and the applications for substitution of their legal representatives (under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC) and for setting aside abatement (under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC) were not filed timely, therefore, in absence of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the said applications filed in respect of respondents 2, 7, 8 & 9 could not have been allowed. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is non- speaking and unreasoned, therefore also it is not sustainable. With the aforesaid submissions he prays for allowing the misc. petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4 . Undisputedly respondent 2-Gokul died during the covid period, therefore, in the light of decision of Supreme Court in the case of In Re:

AIR 1967 SC 1786

5. As such, in my considered opinion, trial court does not appear to have committed any illegality in allowing the joint application for substitution filed in respect of respondents 2, 7, 8 & 9.

6. Resultantly, the misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off. (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document