Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra has held that filing a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 inherently includes a request to set aside abatement, eliminating the need for a separate application. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lallowa  (Now Deceased) v. Satish Chandra (2025). 
• The case arose after the High Court refused to restore a second appeal without a distinct application to set aside abatement. The ruling clarifies procedural requirements, ensuring justice isn't delayed due to technicalities. 

What was the Background of Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) ? 

• The matter pertains to a second appeal that had abated due to non-substitution of legal heirs upon the death of the original Applicant. 
• The legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased Applicant filed an application before the High Court, notifying the death of the Applicant and providing details of heirs for substitution under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 
• The said application did not explicitly contain a separate prayer for setting aside the abatement of the appeal. 
• The High Court had initially restored the second appeal but subsequently recalled its restoration order. 
• The High Court's reasoning for recall was predicated on the procedural requirement that the appeal could not have been restored without a separate and specific application to set aside the abatement. 
• The High Court declined to consider the substitution application filed by the LRs, maintaining that a discrete application for setting aside the abatement was mandatory. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that a justice-oriented approach must be adopted in matters concerning abatement and substitution of legal representatives. 
• The Court held that an application for substitution of legal heirs inherently encompasses the prayer for setting aside abatement, even if not explicitly stated. 
• The Court observed that the mere act of filing an application for bringing legal representatives on record effectively constitutes a prayer for setting aside abatement. 
• Drawing from the precedent established in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003), the Court reiterated that a substitution application inherently carries the prayer for setting aside abatement. 
• The Court states that the relief of setting aside abatement need not be specifically prayed for in exact words, as it is necessarily implied in the prayer for substitution. 
• The Court determined that adherence to strict procedural requirements should not override the interests of justice in such matters. 
• The Court concluded that the High Court erred in insisting upon a separate application for setting aside abatement when a substitution application was already on record. 
• The Supreme Court definitively established that for the ends of justice, an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC for substitution effectively satisfies the requirement for setting aside abatement. 

What is Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC? 

• The rule mandates that upon the death of a sole defendant or one of multiple defendants, where the right to sue survives, an application must be filed before the court to bring the legal representative(s) of the deceased defendant on record to proceed with the suit. 
• Upon receiving a proper application for substitution, the court is duty-bound to ensure that the legal representative(s) of the deceased defendant are made parties to the suit, provided the right to sue survives against such legal representative(s). 
• Any person who is brought on record as a legal representative possesses the right to present defenses that are appropriate and relevant to their character as the legal representative of the deceased defendant. 
• Failure to file an application for substitution within the prescribed limitation period results in automatic abatement of the suit against the deceased defendant, operating as a matter of law without requiring any specific order. 
• The court possesses discretionary power to exempt plaintiffs from the requirement of substituting legal representatives in cases where the deceased defendant either failed to file a written statement or, having filed it, failed to appear and contest the suit. 
• In cases where the court exercises its discretionary power of exemption, any judgment pronounced against the deceased defendant shall carry the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death occurred. 
• The rule provides specific relief for plaintiffs who were ignorant of the defendant's death and consequently could not file the substitution application within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA). 
• Where a suit has abated due to the plaintiff's ignorance of the defendant's death, the plaintiff may file an application after the limitation period for both setting aside the abatement and seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LA. 
• The court, while considering applications under Section 5 of the LA for condonation of delay, must give due consideration to the proven fact of the plaintiff's ignorance of the defendant's death as a sufficient cause for delay. 
• The rule establishes a comprehensive procedural framework balancing the plaintiff's right to pursue the suit, the rights of the deceased defendant's legal representatives, and the court's power to prevent unnecessary termination of suits due to procedural technicalities.