Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Mangluram Dewangan VS Surendra Singh...
2011 0 Supreme(SC) 578 : The legal documents establish that no abatement takes place against a formal party. Specifically, abatement occurs only when the right to sue does not survive the death of the plaintiff, or when no legal representative applies to continue the suit within the prescribed time (90 days under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963). However, if a person claiming to be a legal representative files an application under Order XXII, Rule 3 within the time limit and the court rejects it on the ground that the applicant is not a legal representative, this rejection does not constitute abatement. In such cases, the suit is dismissed not due to abatement, but due to the failure of the applicant to establish their status as a legal representative. The documents clarify that abatement is not dependent on a formal court order and occurs automatically under certain conditions, but it does not apply when the court has already adjudicated on the status of a formal party (i.e., a person who has applied to be substituted as a legal representative). Therefore, abatement does not take place against a formal party who has made a valid application under Order XXII, Rule 3.Checking relevance for Ramdas Shivram Sattur VS Rameshchandra Popatlal Shah...
2007 5 Supreme 895 : The legal documents confirm that abatement does not take place against a formal party. In the case of Ram Sakal Singh v. Mosamat Monako Devi (Dead) and Ors., it is stated that if one of the respondents or defendants is already on record, the appropriate course is to file a formal application or memo to transpose existing parties as legal representatives of deceased parties. This implies that the suit or appeal does not abate solely due to the death of a party when there are other formal parties still on record who can represent the estate. Furthermore, in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and Ors. v. Annabi Devram Kini and Ors., it is emphasized that abatement results in denial of hearing on merits and must be construed strictly, but courts adopt a justice-oriented approach—meaning that where legal representatives are brought on record through a prayer for setting aside abatement, the suit is revived and abatement is deemed set aside even without a specific order. The documents explicitly state that ''''the appeal shall not abate so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned'''' when her legal representatives are already on record, confirming that abatement does not occur against a formal party who remains on record.Checking relevance for Awadh Rai VS Mewalal Rai...
1990 0 Supreme(SC) 376 : The document states that there is no automatic abatement of pending proceedings in the civil court upon the issuance of a notification under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956, and that abatement does not occur merely by virtue of the notification. Instead, abatement can only take place if and when the matter is brought to the notice of the court, and the court, after hearing the parties, makes an order to that effect. This confirms that abatement does not automatically occur against a formal party without a court order following notice and hearing.Checking relevance for Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village VS Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs...
2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1040 : Abatement takes place by operation of law upon the death of a respondent when an application to bring on record the legal representatives is not made within 90 days, as per Rule 4 of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. However, abatement does not automatically close the case; judicial cognizance is required to record the abatement and formally close the proceedings. In cases where a formal party (such as a respondent) dies, abatement occurs unless the legal representatives are brought on record in time. The court must take note of the abatement and record it, especially if the deceased was a sole respondent or if the cause of action survives against other respondents.Checking relevance for Madan Naik VS Hansubala Devi...
Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Ram Charan...
Checking relevance for Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) VS Satish Chandra (Now Deceased)...
2025 3 Supreme 79 : The legal documents establish that when a formal party (such as a plaintiff or defendant) dies, the suit or appeal automatically abates if an application for substitution of legal representatives is not filed within 90 days of death, as mandated by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the documents clarify that abatement does not occur automatically in cases where the death is not known to the opposing party or where the court has not been notified. Crucially, the documents state that there is no legal requirement that only the plaintiff can file an application for substitution upon the death of a party—legal representatives of a deceased defendant may also file such an application. Furthermore, even if an application for substitution does not explicitly pray for setting aside abatement, such a prayer may be implied in the interest of justice. This means that abatement does not take place against a formal party if the legal representative of the deceased party files an application to substitute, even if the plaintiff did not initiate the process. The court may set aside abatement if the appellant was unaware of the death and no notice was given by the court or the deceased’s counsel, provided the three conditions are met: (i) the appeal was pending without hearing dates; (ii) neither the counsel nor the legal representatives reported the death; and (iii) the appellant claims ignorance and there is no contradictory material. Thus, abatement does not automatically occur against a formal party when the legal representative of the deceased takes timely action to substitute, even if the plaintiff did not act.
