IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR MCC No. 2287 of 2017 (SMT. RATNI BAI AND OTHERS Vs SMT. JAMNA BAI AND OTHERS )

Dated : 15-01-2026 Shri Sajid Hussain - Advocate appeared for petitioner.

Ms. K.C.V. Rao, Pl appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Phool Chand Paliwal - Advocate for the respondent [R-1][LR/S].

Heard on I.A. Nos.22980/2025, 22981/2025 and 22982/2025.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent no. 1 has expired on 31.03.2022. It is further submitted that the applicants are not well versed with the provisions of law which requires substitution of LRs after the death of the party. It is submitted that on 30.10.2025 when the counsel had contacted the appellant for further instructions, it was informed that the respondent no. 1 had expired on 31.03.2022. Thereafter, he was advised to file an application for substitution and accordingly, on

02.11.2025, he came to Jabalpur and the application has been filed.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta @ Lalloowa (Now Deceased) vs. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 291, has observed in paragraph -23 as under :-

"23. We find it difficult to agree with such reasoning. When an application praying for substitution had been made, then, even assuming that it does not have an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement, such prayer could not be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice. We draw inspiration for such a conclusion, having read the decision in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh vs. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691. This Court reiterated the need for a justice oriented approach in such matters. Inter alia, it was held that prayer to bring on record heir(s)/legal representative(s) can also be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement. The relevant passage reads as under :-

"8. Inasmuch as the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed strictly. On the other hand, the prayer for setting aside an abatement and the dismissal consequent upon an abatement, have to be considered liberally. A simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement. So also a prayer for setting aside abatement as regards one of the plaintiffs can be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety. Abatement of suit for failure to move an application for bringing the legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation is automatic and a specific order dismissing the suit as abated is not called for. Once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order dismissing the suit as abated, yet the legal representatives proposing to be brought on record or any other applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record would seek the setting aside of an abatement. A prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record, if allowed, would have the effect of setting aside the abatement as the relief of setting aside abatement though not asked for in so many words is in effect being actually asked for and is necessarily implied. Too technical or pedantic an approach in such cases is not called for.

9. The courts have to adopt a justice-oriented approach dictated by the uppermost consideration that ordinarily a litigant ought not to be denied an opportunity of having a lis determined on merits unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the court. The opinion of the trial Judge allowing a prayer for setting aside abatement and his finding on the question of availability of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of sub- rule (2) of R