Name of the case: Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa(now deceased) Vs. Satish Chandra(now deceased)
Number: Civil Appeal No. 13407 of 2024
Date: 11 Feb, 2025
Quorum: Justice Dipankar Datta
Facts of the Case
The contract where specific performance was sought was at the bottom of litigation that began in the early seventies. The trial court dismissed the suit in October 1974, but the appeal in March 1977 ended with a decree in Satish Chandra’s favor. In May 1977, the matter was taken in second appeal at Allahabad High Court by Om Prakash Gupta, who obtained a stay of the decree there.
The case then took a turn when in December 1996, Satish Chandra died during the pendency of the second appeal. His heirs promptly filed an application on January 2, 1997, for substitution of his name by that of his legal heirs (Anil Kumar, Viman Kumar, and Manoj Kumar) against the will of Om Prakash Gupta, who also died in December 2001. In the meantime, several opportunities were granted by the Court to the lawyers of Om Prakash Gupta to file the application for substitution. However, this being unacted upon, the second appeal was ultimately dismissed as abated by January 2007 for non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
A decade later, i.e., in 2017, claims were filed for execution of the decree by heirs of Satish Chandra. Meanwhile, heirs of Om Prakash Gupta filed the subject application for recalling (restoration) of the appeal dismissing their application along with the application for substitution with a plea for excuse of delay. While the appeal was restored by the High Court by May 2018, applications for substitution and condonation of delay were turned down in February 2019, delay being termed as the one for which no excuse could be entertained. Consequentially, by 2024, two civil appeals were filed by the heirs of Om Prakash Gupta as well as the heirs of Smt. Rooprani, wife of Satish Chandra.
Issues
- The High Court’s condemnation of the rejection of the application for substitution (substitution of the legal heirs) and refusal to excuse the delay was warranted?
- Upon failing to effect mandatory substitution in a proper way, could the second appeal be deemed or go abate (come to an end by operation of law) and is that a legitimate inference?
Legal Provisions
Order XXII, Rules 3 & 4 of the CPC: These rules lay down the manner in which legal representatives must be substituted for a deceased party in a suit.
Order XXII, Rule 10-A of the CPC: In terms of this rule, it is the duty of the lawyer of the party who dies to inform the court regarding such fact for making the legitimate substitutions.
Limitation Act,1963(Sections 120 & 121): The provisions state the limitation periods, the time within which application for substitution and application for recall of abatement of the suit can be made.
Arguments by the Appellants
The heirs of Om Prakash Gupta argued against any such need of making a separate application for substitution stating that one such valid application for substitution had already been made by the heirs of Satish Chandra.
The delay was completely rejected by the High Court on purely technical grounds, insufficient consideration being given to the instances where high court appeals might be pending for some time. In the interest of justice, it must be asserted that a very subtle and technical approach towards the delay shall not be allowed to preclude the hearing on merit of the appeal. They argued that a legal notice informing of the demise of the Satish Chandras was duly served and, in their contention, this fact should have triggered the commencement of substitution proceedings without anything against them being flagged as delay.
Arguments by the Respondents
The appellants did know of the death and had all the time to make their application for substitution. The delay in making the application reflected negligence and lack of diligence justifying its treatment as abatement of the appeal. There is a mode of the procedural rules that specifically contemplate the expediency in substitution, and any dereliction of this duty will greatly compromise the orderly dispensation of justice. They have reiterated that the appellants never truly complied with the technical requirements of Order XXII, including Rule 10-A.
Analysis
In its deliberations, the Supreme Court noted that it often explained that the law did not require for the substitution to be made solely by one party (ordinarily the plaintiff). If the application for substitution had been made by the heirs of the deceased party, the onus would have shifted upon the knowledge of death being brought to the notice of the court.
Moreover, the Court observed that the High Court proceedings linger on for long which affords scope for inadvertent delays. However, once the substitute party has knowledge of death, it has an obligation to act with reasonable diligence. The Supreme Court frowned upon the technicality and narrow view adopted by the High Court in reference to the delay in question and instigated a broader view, oriented towards justice. Implicit in every High Court proceeding is the characteristic of delay, which must not in itself bar the appeal from being considered abated, especially so when there are fundamental rights of either of the parties involved.
With reliance upon pronouncements from several earlier cases, the Court held that the application for substitution made by the legal heirs of Satish Chandra was valid and therefore there need not have been a second application made by the legal heirs of Om Prakash Gupta.
Judgment
Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the order of the High Court rejecting the application for substitution and declaring the second appeal as abated was erroneous, and that the application by the legal heirs of Satish Chandra for substitution should be upheld and no separate application was required from the legal heirs of Om Prakash Gupta.
Consequently, the High Court order abrogating the second appeal stands set aside and the second appeal is restored to its original file and number by this order. The Court held that the case should be given priority, preferably to be heard within six months with no costs were granted.
Conclusion
This decision demands a human, flexible response to rules of procedure in cases lingering on for decades. The Supreme Court realized that technicalities cannot be applied mechanically in decades-old pending cases, lest it results in miscarriage of justice. The Court, in quashing the High Court order, has provided the parties with an opportunity to get their case heard on merits.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by OUM NARANG
