Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 339

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ
Gouri Shankar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Janki Dom – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 886 - 888 of 2026 | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.10197-10198/2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Naseem Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Haraprasad Sahu, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR

The court held that there is no legal presumption that a party is aware of the death of an opposing party simply because they reside in the same locality; such a presumption cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a delay condonation application.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Substitution of Legal Heirs - Presumption of knowledge of death based on residency in the same locality - Court cannot reject a delay condonation application based on a presumption that parties residing in the same locality must be aware of a party's death, as no such presumption exists in law. (Para 5, 6)

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the delay condonation application for substitution of legal heirs based on the presumption that the appellant was aware of the death due to residing in the same locality.

Table of Content
1. procedural history regarding the rejection of substitution application and delay condonation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. invalidity of presumption of knowledge of death based on common locality. (Para 5 , 6)
3. setting aside the impugned order and condoning the delay for substitution. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The application for condonation of delay in filing substitution application in respect of the deceased respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal before the High Court has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13/04.01.2013.

4. A perusal of the order reveals that the respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal had died but the substitution application to bring his heirs and legal representatives was filed with the delay of about seven months along with an application to condone the delay in filing the substitution application as well as to set aside the abatement, if any.

5. We find no plausible reason on the part of the High Court in rejecting the delay condonation application and consequently, substitution application merely for the reason that court presumed that since the parties were resident of same locality, they were aware of the death.

6. No such presumption in law exists. Therefore, the High Court fell in error in rejecting the delay condonation application. In fact, the appellant was not actually aware of the date of the death of the said respondent. This aspect was not considered independently of the above presumption.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 13/04.01.2013 is hereby set aside and the delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. The abatement if any, is set aside and the substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal before the High Court is permitted.

8. The appeals are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 339

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJGouri Shankar Yadav – AppellantVersusJanki Dom – RespondentCivil Appeal Nos. 886 - 888 of 2026 | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.10197-10198/2014

The court held that there is no legal presumption that a party is aware of the death of an opposing party simply because they reside in the same locality; such a presumption cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a delay condonation application.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ
Gouri Shankar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Janki Dom – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 886 - 888 of 2026 | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.10197-10198/2014