SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3394

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Khatim Reza, J
Kamla Devi And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Ishwar deyal dubey – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL No.544 of 2009



Advocates:
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Shree Kant Pandeya
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra

Legal procedures for substituting parties in an appeal following the death of an appellant are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Headnote:The judgment addresses the procedural matters concerning the substitution of parties in an appeal following the demise of appellant Satyadeo Dubey. It refers to Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, detailing the necessity of filing a Vakalatnama for heirs. The Court finds that the application filed for the substitution was timely and permits the update of records accordingly. The pivotal issue framed by the court was the lawful substitution of legal heirs, allowing for the inclusion of previously omitted heirs to ensure fair representation in ongoing legal matters. The Court concludes that there was sufficient basis to allow the substitution, restating the outcome that procedural requirements must be adhered to for the continuation of the appeal process.

Table of Content
1. substitution of parties must follow procedural rules and timelines. (Para 2)
2. timeliness in filing applications is emphasized under civil procedure rules. (Para 4 , 12)
3. inclusion of previously omitted heirs ensures comprehensive representation. (Para 7 , 10)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

20 04-12-2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

Re: I.A. No. 8 of 2025

2. This interlocutory application has been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting the names of the heirs of appellant no. 2, namely, Satyadeo Dubey, who died on 10.10.2025 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives whose details are mentioned in paragraph no 3 of this interlocutory application.

3. This interlocutory application has been filed on

25.11.2025 well within the statutory period of limitation, but no Vakalatnama on behalf of the heirs of deceased appellant no. 2 has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to file a duly executed Vakalatnama on behalf of the heirs of deceased appellant no. 2 within two weeks.

the prayer is allowed subject to filing a duly executed Vakalatnama on behalf of the heirs of deceased appellant no. 2 within two weeks failing which I.A. No. 8 of 2025 shall stand dismissed.

6. Office is directed to delete the name of the deceased appellant no. 2 from the memo of appeal and substitute his heirs in his place subject to filing a duly executed Vakalatnama on behalf of the heirs of deceased appellant no. 2 within two weeks.

Re: I.A. No. 4 of 2019

7. This interlocutory application has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting left out legal heir, namely, Sunita Devi, of sole respondent, namely, Ishwar Dayal Dubey, whose details are mentioned in paragraph no. 7 of this application.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide order dated 20.08.2019, the heirs of deceased sole respondent Ishwar Dayal Dubey were substituted but his daughter, namely, Sunita Devi was not made party due to non-

availability of her detail.

I.A. No. 4 of 2019 is allowed.

10. Office is directed to add the name of Sunita Devi, the daughter of deceased sole respondent as respondent no. 1(e)

in the memo of appeal.

11. Issue appeal notice to newly added respondent i.e.

respondent no. 1(e), namely, Sunita Devi under speed post with A/D as well as through ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week.

Re: I.A. No. 5 of 2020

12. This interlocutory application has been filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay in filing I.A. No. 4 of 2019.

13. Since other heirs of deceased sole respondent were already on record, no question arises for setting aside abatement against him.

14. There is no need for filing I.A. No. 5 of 2020.

15. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5 of 2020 is disposed of.

15. List this case on 8th December, 2025.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top