Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXII Rules 4, 9, 10-A & 11
Abatement of appeal — Death of respondent — Ignorance of death
Abatement occurs by operation of law on expiry of limitation for substitution — However, ignorance of the death of a respondent constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside abatement, particularly when appeal is pending without periodic listing and no notice of death is given.
[Paras 4.2–4.5, 5, 14–15]
Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 5, Articles 120 & 121
Condonation of delay — Liberal approach in abatement matters
Applications for setting aside abatement and substitution of legal representatives must be considered liberally — Length of delay is immaterial; sufficiency and acceptability of explanation is decisive — Courts are more liberal in abatement cases than in cases of delay in filing appeals.
[Paras 6, 8(ii), 8(iii)]
“Sufficient cause” — Meaning and scope
Section 5, Limitation Act
Expression “sufficient cause” must receive a pragmatic, practical and justice-oriented interpretation — Delay not attributable to negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides ought to be condoned to advance substantial justice.
[Paras 6, 8(i)]
Duty of counsel — Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC
Counsel for a deceased party has a statutory duty to inform the Court of the death — Failure to report death is a relevant factor while considering condonation of delay and setting aside abatement.
[Paras 4.5, 11, 15]
Pending appeals — High Courts — No duty of constant vigilance
Where an appeal is admitted and remains pending for years without being listed, appellant is not expected to make periodic enquiries about the life or death of respondents — Want of diligence cannot be imputed in such circumstances.
[Paras 8(v), 10, 14]
Institutions / Bodies — Change of management — Ignorance of proceedings
Where appellant is an institution acting through a managing committee, change of management resulting in ignorance of pending appeal and death of respondent constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
[Paras 3, 15]
Abatement — Preference for adjudication on merits
Courts should ordinarily set aside abatement and decide matters on merits rather than terminate proceedings on technical grounds, unless deliberate negligence or mala fides is shown.
[Paras 8(ii), 14]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Nature of Abatement
The Court clarifies that abatement under Order XXII CPC:
-
occurs automatically by operation of law on expiry of limitation;
-
does not require a formal judicial declaration to take effect;
-
nevertheless requires judicial cognizance to close proceedings (Paras 4.2–5).
B. Liberal Approach in Abatement Matters
The judgment draws a clear distinction between:
-
delay in filing an appeal, and
-
delay in taking steps in a pending appeal.
Courts are required to be far more liberal in the latter category, as refusal would foreclose adjudication on merits (Paras 6, 8(ii)).
C. Ignorance of Death as Sufficient Cause
By reference to Order XXII Rule 4(5) CPC, the Court holds that:
-
ignorance of the death of a respondent is a statutorily recognised ground;
-
such ignorance, if bona fide and uncontradicted, constitutes sufficient cause;
-
no diligence can be expected where the appellant is unaware of the death (Paras 4.4–4.5, 12–15).
D. Role of Rule 10-A CPC
The Court emphasises that:
-
counsel for the deceased party has a duty to inform the Court of death;
-
failure to discharge this duty weighs in favour of the appellant seeking condonation;
-
delay effectively runs from date of knowledge, not date of death (Paras 11, 15).
E. High Court Appeals — Practical Realities
A significant jurisprudential contribution of this judgment is recognition of ground realities:
-
appeals in High Courts often remain unlisted for years;
-
litigants are not expected to keep constant vigil;
-
expecting periodic enquiry into life status of respondents is unrealistic (Paras 8(v), 10).
F. Balancing Accrued Rights vs Substantial Justice
While acknowledging that abatement confers a valuable right on legal representatives, the Court holds that:
-
such right should not defeat adjudication on merits where delay is bona fide;
-
procedural law is a handmaid of justice, not its mistress (Paras 8(ii), 14).
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS FOUND)
-
Second appeal admitted in 1993 and not listed for hearing for several years (Paras 2, 10).
-
Sole respondent died on 17-04-2002 (Para 2).
-
Death was not reported by counsel or LRs to the High Court (Paras 11, 15).
-
Appellant institution underwent change of management; new committee unaware of appeal (Paras 3, 15).
-
Applications for substitution and setting aside abatement filed promptly after knowledge (Para 3).
IV. FINAL HOLDING / RESULT
-
Delay held satisfactorily explained.
-
Orders of High Court refusing condonation and setting aside abatement set aside.
-
Delay condoned; abatement set aside.
-
Legal representatives permitted to be brought on record.
-
High Court directed to hear the appeal on merits.
[Para 16]
Ratio (Concise)
In appeals pending without periodic listing, bona fide ignorance of the respondent’s death—especially where counsel failed to report it—constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement; courts must prefer adjudication on merits over technical termination.
