IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 104 of 2025

RAMNIHOR AND OTHERS

Versus

RAMLAL MISHR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri D.P. Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent No.38/State.

ORDER defendants had intimated the fact of death of these three defendants for the first time on 10.11.2018 then in terms of Order 22 Rule 10 A of the CPC, the limitation would start to run from 10.11.2018 and therefore, the Trial Court not have dismissed the suit as abated on 20.11.2018 within 10 days of other defendants giving information of death of these three defendants for the first time before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has further held that even if the suit had to be abated, it could be only against these three defendants No.12, 13 and 14, and not in its entirety.

The present Revision has been filed challenging the Order of the

Appellate Court dated 09.01.2025 whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the Order dated 20.11.2018 of the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court had rejected the suit as abated in terms of Order 22 Rule 4 (3) of the CPC not

only against the alleged deceased defendants but in entirety.

2. The Appellate Court has considered the position that the other

defendants had for the first time intimated the fact of death of defendants No.12, 13 and 14 to have taken place by submitting an application under Order 22 Rule 4(3) of the C.P.C. on 10.11.2018 and the Trial Court held that since these three defendants No.12, 13 and 14 have expired many years ago, therefore, the suit has abated not only against these 3 defendants but in

entirety.

3. The Appellate Court has considered the position that when other

4. So far as the aforesaid Order of the Appellate Court is concerned, in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binod Pathak Vs.

Shankar Choudhary, 2025 SCC Online SC 1411, it has been held as under:-

60. Rule 10A of Order XXII, as inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976 imposes an obligation on the pleader appearing for the party to intimate death of his client to the court. But there is difference of opinion as to whether the duty imposed on the pleader is confined to factum of death of a party or also to furnish names and particulars of legal representatives.

61. According to one view, there is no obligation on the pleader appearing on behalf of the deceased party to furnish or supply list of legal representatives of the deceased.

62. According to the other view, however, the pleader has not only to inform the court as to death of the party but he must also furnish particulars of legal representatives.

63. However, we are of the view that providing merely an information with regard to the fact of death is not sufficient compliance of the Rule 10A of the CPC. unless and until the counsel furnishes the information with regard to the details of the persons on whom and against whom the right to sue survives and the information under Rule 10A of the CPC. and the object behind it would remain incomplete as the parties would still be labouring to inquire who are the legal representatives and find out as to upon whom and against whom the right to sue survives.

5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the other party is duty bound not only to intimate the fact of death of the party but also the names of the legal representatives and the Appellate Court has rightly held that limitation would start to run from the date of intimation which was 10.11.2018.

6. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. S. S. Akolkar, 1996 (2) SCC 568, it has been held as under :-

“6. .. .. .. .. Under Order 22, Rule 10-A, it is the duty of the counsel, on coming to know of the death of a party, to inform it to the court and the court shall give notice to the other party of the death. By necessary implication delay for substitution of legal representatives begins to run from the date of kno