Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Order 22 Rule 10-A - Duty to Inform Court of Death: Rule 10-A of Order 22 CPC imposes an obligation on counsel to inform the court about the death of a party once they become aware of it. Failure to do so can lead to legal consequences, including abatement of the suit or proceedings. The Supreme Court has emphasized that this provision was introduced to mitigate hardships caused by parties or counsel not informing the court about deaths during the pendency of a case ["Amrit Deepak Kumar Singh VS Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey - Jharkhand"], ["Hakim Din VS Akbar Noor - Current Civil Cases"], ["Binod Pathak VS Shankar Choudhary - Supreme Court"].
Consequence of Not Informing the Court: If the legal representatives or counsel do not notify the court about a party's death under Order 22 Rule 10-A, the proceedings may abate, or the suit may be dismissed as barred by limitation. Courts have noted that mechanical or delayed disclosures can lead to dismissal or abatement, especially if the delay is not justified or if the application is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period ["Amrit Deepak Kumar Singh VS Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey - Jharkhand"], ["Shyamkali VS Butaiya - Madhya Pradesh"].
Application and Limitations: The provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 relate to substitution of legal representatives upon death, but amendments and judicial interpretations clarify that failure to inform the court timely can prevent substitution and lead to abatement. The law recognizes that the duty to inform is crucial for proper substitution and continuation of proceedings ["Vishwajeet Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Girdharilal Jaiswal VS Suresh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Hajarilal Jaiswal - Chhattisgarh"], ["Gurmeet Singh VS Harjinder Singh - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Gurmeet Singh VS Harjinder Singh - Punjab and Haryana"].
Special Provisions in Family and Execution Proceedings: The applicability of Order 22 varies; for instance, in family law or execution proceedings, the court may interpret rules differently, but generally, the obligation to inform remains. Courts have held that the failure to notify about death can hinder the substitution process and may result in proceedings abating or being dismissed ["Shatakshi Mishra VS Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) - Allahabad"].
Legal Effect of Not Informing: The main consequence of not informing the court under Order 22 Rule 10-A is the potential abatement of the suit or proceedings, especially if the delay in informing is not justified or if it results in prejudice to the other party. Courts have consistently stressed the importance of timely disclosure to ensure justice and proper substitution of legal heirs ["Amrit Deepak Kumar Singh VS Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey - Jharkhand"], ["Hakim Din VS Akbar Noor - Current Civil Cases"].
Failure to inform the court of a respondent's death under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC leads to significant procedural consequences, primarily abatement of the suit or proceedings. The legal framework emphasizes the duty of counsel and parties to promptly notify the court to facilitate proper substitution and continuation of justice. Ignoring this obligation can result in dismissal or delay, underscoring the importance of timely communication in civil proceedings. Judicial decisions reinforce that the provisions are designed to prevent hardship and ensure smooth administration of justice ["Amrit Deepak Kumar Singh VS Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey - Jharkhand"], ["Hakim Din VS Akbar Noor - Current Civil Cases"], ["Binod Pathak VS Shankar Choudhary - Supreme Court"].
In civil litigation, the untimely death of a party can disrupt proceedings if not handled promptly. A common query arises: The Date of the Death has to be Mentioned in the Application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 to be Legally Maintained. This question touches on critical procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly regarding substitution of legal representatives. Failing to address this correctly may lead to abatement of the suit or appeal, rendering decrees void. This post breaks down the rules, consequences, and best practices, drawing from key judicial precedents.
Order 22 CPC governs the scenario when a plaintiff (Rule 3), defendant (Rule 4), or appellant/respondent dies during pendency of a suit, appeal, or other proceeding. The right to sue survives to legal representatives, who must be substituted via an application within the limitation period—typically 90 days under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
While Rules 3 and 4 outline the substitution process, Order 22 Rule 10A imposes a duty on the pleader (counsel) to inform the court immediately upon learning of a party's death. This ensures transparency and prevents delays. But does the substitution application itself require explicitly stating the date of death? Generally, yes, as the limitation period commences from the date of death, not the date of knowledge or court intimation. Omitting it can invite challenges on timeliness. T. Sarojamma alias Saroja Bai VS Mohd. Khaleelur Rahiman - Andhra Pradesh
An application under Rule 3 must be filed by legal representatives or plaintiff (if multiple plaintiffs). It typically includes:- Names and details of legal representatives.- Date of death—crucial to establish the 90-day limitation starts from this date.- Affidavit verifying facts.
Failure to mention the date may lead courts to question if the application is within time, potentially causing dismissal. Courts emphasize precision to avoid abatement. Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia VS Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) Through LRs - Supreme Court
Similar to Rule 3, but filed by plaintiff. The application seeks to bring legal heirs on record. Again, the date of death must be stated to compute limitation correctly. The limitation for filing an application to bring legal representatives on record begins from the date of death, not from the date the court is informed. T. Sarojamma alias Saroja Bai VS Mohd. Khaleelur Rahiman - Andhra Pradesh
In practice, applications without the exact date risk being deemed defective, as seen in cases where courts set aside proceedings for procedural lapses. Raniya Bai VS Tekmani Rathore - Madhya Pradesh
Rule 10A mandates: Whenever a pleader of a party becomes aware of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it. This is not optional—non-compliance triggers severe repercussions.
Rule 10-A of Order 22 casts a duty on the counsel for the respondent to inform the court about the death of such respondent whenever he comes to know about it. Steel Authority of India Limited VS Thakur Surya Prasad Singh - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 988
From other precedents:- In execution proceedings, Order 22 Rule 12 exempts abatement: Nothing in Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree. Legal reps can continue without abatement. Musunuri Satyanarayana VS Tummala Indira Devi - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1530- GOVIND SINGH MOGIYA vs RAKESH KUMAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4869: Appellant's delay post-death notification led to abatement dismissal; no condonation without sufficient cause. GOVIND SINGH MOGIYA vs RAKESH KUMAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4869- Courts have set aside abatement if death not notified properly: There is no notice given by court to appellants regarding death... finding of abatement... is vitiated. Steel Authority of India Limited VS Thakur Surya Prasad Singh - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 988- Liberal view on condonation if counsel failed Rule 10A: Substitution allowed at second appeal stage if death not informed. HARI LAL CHAURASIA (DEAD) VS KRISHNA DEVI - 2012 Supreme(All) 1173- Ramdass vs. Dy. Director: If some heirs on record, others can be added without abatement. C. Mathuram VS Technical Staff Housing Society - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2183
These cases highlight that while date of death is pivotal, courts may condone delays with 'sufficient cause' under Section 5, Limitation Act, but vigilance is key. Roja Orain VS Elias Oraon - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1137
Mentioning the date of death in Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 applications is typically essential for legal maintainability, as it anchors the limitation period and upholds procedural integrity. Non-compliance with Rule 10A exacerbates risks like abatement or null decrees. While courts may show leniency in genuine cases, diligence prevents pitfalls. Raniya Bai VS Tekmani Rathore - Madhya PradeshLalit Mohan Ghosh VS Lala Netai Chandra Babu @ Basu - Calcutta
This post provides general insights based on CPC and case laws; it is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
#CPCOrder22
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 10A – Quashing order ... On 19.09.2016 petition under Order XXI Rule 10 A was filed by the present petitioner informing the court about the death of his brother, (Defendant No.2) and necessary action may be taken by the plaintiff. The Court allowed the plaintiff to file rejoinder. .......
aside abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC, and for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. ... Abatement - Civil Procedure - Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC - Summary Fact of the Case:/ ... The appellants moved applications for bringing legal representatives of deceased respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, setting ... He would also argue that though an application unde....
“Rule 10-A of Order 22 casts a duty on the counsel for the respondent to inform the court about the death of such respondent whenever he comes to know about it. ... (2), Order-XXII R-4 & Order-XXII R-10-A of CPC. ... Therefore, where a case is covered by Order-XXII R-4, the provisions of O....
Order 22 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows : "Order 22 Rule 12. Application of order to proceedings.-Nothing in Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order." 12. ... Ramaswami (supra), that Article 120 of the LIMITATION ACT providing a period of 90 days, applies only to the applications that hav....
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 4, 9, and 10 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Application for substitution ... Shri Rajiv Jain, Advocate for respondent. ORDER I.A. No.408/2018 is an application under Order 22 Rule 10, CPC, thereby informing the death of respondent Rakesh Kumar.....
In any case, in view of the amendment in Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, which came into force on March 10, 1975, it was the duty of the legal representatives of the deceased Raunak Ram to make the necessary application for bringing them on the record. ... It may be noticed that an amendment was made in Order 22 Rule 4 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE by this Court on 11.4.1975....
In any case, in view of the amendment in Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, which came into force on March 10, 1975, it was the duty of the legal representatives of the deceased Raunak Ram to make the necessary application for bringing them on the record. ... It may be noticed that an amendment was made in Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code by this Court on 11.4.1975....
Are the provisions of Order 22 CPC applicable in Family Court proceedings? 2. ... FRAUD - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 5, 11; Family Courts Act, 1984; Order 22 CPC - The court discussed ... The court also interpreted the Family Courts Act and Order 22 of the CPC, concluding that legal representatives can pursue proceedings ... Order 22 #HL_START....
no intimation was given on behalf of defendant 3 as per provision contained in Order 22 rule 10-A CPC. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were residing with their in-laws and were not aware about death of defendant/respondent 3 - Motilal Singh and came to know about the death of defendant 3 on 10.2.2017 by way o....
Sub-Rule (1) of new proposed Rule 10-A of Order 22 has been amended accordingly.[...] ... Similarly, no rule has been laid down in the said decision prescribing that the provision of Order 22 Rule 10 A shall override the mandatory provision relating to abatement as contained in Order 22#HL....
The second circumstance is whether the counsel for the deceased respondent or the legal representative of the deceased respondent notified the court about the death and whether the court gave notice of such death to the appellant. The need for diligence commences from the date of such knowledge. Rule 10-A of Order 22 casts a duty on the counsel for the respondent to inform the court about the death of such respondent whenever he comes to know about it. When the death is repor....
The second circumstance is whether the counsel for the deceased respondent or the legal representative of the deceased respondent notified the court about the death and whether the court gave notice of such death to the appellant. When the death is reported and recorded in the order-sheet/proceedings and the appellant is notified, the appellant has knowledge of the death and there is a duty on the part of the appellant to take steps to bring the legal representative of the deceased on record, ....
The second circumstance is whether the counsel for the deceased respondent or the legal representative of the deceased respondent notified the court about the death and whether the court gave notice of such death to the appellant. The need for diligence commences from the date of such knowledge. Rule 10-A of Order 22 casts a duty on the counsel for the respondent to inform the court about the death of such respondent whenever he comes to know about it. When the death is repor....
The question of abatement or nullity of the decree cannot be gone into while considering the application to condone the delay. Order 22 Rule 10A procedure has not been complied with by not informing the death of other defendants to the plaintiff. Since the sale deed has already been executed in pursuant to the ex-parte decree , nothing survives in the suit. He should have made an enquiry about the status of the suit before effecting sale in favour of third parties during the ....
1. Ms. Kamla Misra, learned counsel for the respondnets in the present second appeal informed the deponent about the death of respondent No. 1 on 31.8.2010 and then the deponent enquired about the legal heirs of respondent No. 1 and as such the present substitution application has been filed and the same is maintainable. It is stated that the fact was never brought to the notice of the lower Court nor the counsel for the respondents ever informed the lower appellate Court about the death of la....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
