In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has provided clarity on the legal principles governing substitution of parties, abatement of appeals, and delay condonation under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Limitation Act, 1963. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 13407 and 13408 of 2024, arising from a long-standing property dispute that dates back over five decades.
Background of the Case
The appeals stemmed from two specific performance suits filed in the early 1970s – Civil Suit No. 264/1972 by Satish Chandra and Civil Suit No. 94/1973 by Smt. Rooprani, both seeking enforcement of separate sale agreements against Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa. While both suits were initially dismissed by the trial court in 1974, the first appellate court reversed the decisions in 1977, leading to second appeals (Nos. 884 and 885 of 1977) being filed before the Allahabad High Court by Om Prakash.
During the pendency of the appeals, Satish Chandra passed away in 1996, and his heirs moved an application for substitution in 1997. Om Prakash passed away in 2001, but his heirs did not file for substitution for several years, resulting in the High Court declaring the second appeals as abated on January 2, 2007. In 2017, the legal heirs of Satish Chandra and Rooprani initiated execution proceedings, prompting Om Prakash’s heirs to seek recall of the abatement order and move for substitution and delay condonation. However, the High Court rejected their applications in 2019, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for substitution and delay condonation filed by the heirs of Om Prakash.
Whether an application for substitution filed by the heirs of the deceased respondent (Satish Chandra) was sufficient to prevent the appeal from abating.
Whether the period of limitation for substitution and abatement under the CPC and Limitation Act should be applied rigidly, or if a justice-oriented approach should be adopted.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order of abatement and restored the second appeals, holding that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice. The Court emphasized that inordinate delays caused by lack of awareness about a party’s death should not penalize the affected litigant unfairly.
Quoting Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321, the bench reiterated:
“The words ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction, or negligence.”
Further, the Court laid down a clear framework for filing substitution applications in cases where a party dies during litigation:
Within 90 days of death → File an application for substitution (under CPC Order XXII, Rules 3 & 4).
Between 91st and 150th day → File an application for setting aside abatement along with substitution.
After 150 days → File an application for condonation of delay along with substitution and abatement setting aside requests.
Addressing the role of Rule 10-A of Order XXII CPC, the Court criticized the lack of proper notice by the High Court regarding the death of parties and observed:
“When the appeal lies dormant for years on end, one cannot expect the other party to be a watchdog for the day-to-day survival of the opposite party.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the substitution application filed by the heirs of Satish Chandra in 1997 was valid and legally sufficient, meaning the second appeal should not have been abated. It also ruled that the abatement of the second appeal due to the death of Rooprani was unjustified, as no clear notice was given to Om Prakash’s heirs.
