The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a decree passed in an appeal is not a nullity merely because the original plaintiff or defendant died prior to judgment, provided their estate is sufficiently represented by co-parties who are legal heirs. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural lapses under the Code of Civil Procedure do not automatically invalidate judicial outcomes when substantive representation remains intact.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning title to immovable property in Village Munund, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The original plaintiffs were Pratap Singh Rathiya and his three brothers (Bhajan Singh, Madan Singh, and Ramchandra Singh). The original defendants were Madhusudan, son of Sundar Sai, and his two brothers, Rajkumar and Ramkumar. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and possession over ancestral land. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, which upheld the trial court’s decree. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court (S.A. No. 129/2002).
Key Facts
- The original plaintiff, Pratap Singh Rathiya, died on 24-09-2009 during the pendency of the second appeal.
- The original defendant, Madhusudan, died on 06-11-2013, also during the pendency of the appeal.
- Neither party’s counsel informed the High Court of these deaths, despite the mandatory requirement under Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC.
- The second appeal was heard on 13-02-2019 and judgment was delivered on 21-02-2019, allowing the plaintiffs’ appeal and setting aside the trial court’s decree.
- The legal heirs of Pratap Singh Rathiya - his three brothers - were already parties to the suit and appeal as plaintiffs No. 2 to 4.
- The legal heirs of Madhusudan - his two brothers, Rajkumar and Ramkumar - were already parties to the suit and appeal as defendants No. 2 and 3.
- All parties were Class II heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- On 13-07-2020, Smt. Champa, widow of Madhusudan, filed a review petition challenging the 2019 judgment, contending that the appeal had abated due to non-substitution of legal representatives.
Procedural History
- Date of suit filing: Not specified in judgment, but appeal filed before High Court as S.A. No. 129/2002.
- 24-09-2009: Death of plaintiff No. 1, Pratap Singh Rathiya.
- 06-11-2013: Death of defendant No. 1, Madhusudan.
- 13-02-2019: Hearing of second appeal before Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 21-02-2019: Judgment delivered allowing the second appeal and restoring the trial court’s decree.
- 13-07-2020: Review petition filed by Smt. Champa, legal heir of Madhusudan.
- 18-03-2026: Judgment on review petition delivered by Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (Smt. Champa)
The petitioner contended that since both the original plaintiff and defendant died before the judgment, and their legal representatives were not formally brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC, the appeal had abated ipso facto. Consequently, the judgment dated 21-02-2019 was a nullity and liable to be set aside.
For the Respondents (Plaintiffs No. 1A to 5 and Defendants No. 6 & 7)
The respondents argued that the deceased parties’ estates were fully and substantially represented by their surviving brothers, who were already parties to the suit and appeal. These brothers were Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and had continuously defended the joint interest of the deceased. Therefore, abatement did not occur.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) setting aside of the judgment dated 21-02-2019; (2) declaration that the second appeal had abated; and (3) restoration of the trial court’s decree.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure to formally substitute legal representatives of deceased parties under Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC results in automatic abatement of the appeal, or whether the appeal may continue if the estate of the deceased is sufficiently represented by co-parties who are also legal heirs.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the mandatory language of Order 22 Rule 10A CPC, which requires notice of a party’s death to be given to the court. Failure to do so, she argued, renders any subsequent judgment a nullity. She cited K. S. Srinivasan v. K. S. Srinivasan to argue that abatement is automatic and cannot be cured by subsequent representation.
For the Respondent
The respondents relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick and Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, which held that abatement does not occur if the estate of the deceased is sufficiently represented by other parties on record who are also legal heirs. They emphasized that the surviving brothers were not merely co-parties but also Class II heirs with a direct interest in the property, and had continuously prosecuted the litigation in the deceased’s interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that Order 22 Rule 10A CPC imposes a solemn duty on counsel to inform the court of a party’s death. However, it held that the rule is directory, not mandatory, and non-compliance does not automatically invalidate proceedings if the substantive representation of the estate remains intact.
"The estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented before this Court. Under the circumstances it is not possible to uphold the plea that the appeal had abated and the judgment on merits rendered by this Court... requires to be set aside on this ground."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick, where the Court held that where the deceased’s estate is represented by heirs already on record, abatement does not occur. Similarly, in Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, the Court affirmed that when co-defendants are also legal heirs and jointly defend the interest of the deceased, non-substitution does not abate the suit.
The Court found that in the present case, the three brothers of the deceased plaintiff and the two brothers of the deceased defendant were not only co-parties but also Class II heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. They had actively participated in the litigation from inception, filed the appeal, and argued it before the High Court. Their representation was continuous, substantial, and in the same capacity as the deceased.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that formal substitution was indispensable. It held that the spirit of Order 22 Rule 10A is to ensure representation, not to create technical traps that invalidate judgments. Since the estate was fully represented, the appeal did not abate, and the judgment dated 21-02-2019 was valid.
The Verdict
The review petition was dismissed. The Court held that the judgment dated 21-02-2019 in S.A. No. 129/2002 is valid and not a nullity. The Court directed the petitioner to pay costs of ₹ 2,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Substantive Representation Trumps Procedural Non-Compliance
- Practitioners must now argue that Order 22 Rule 10A CPC violations do not automatically invalidate judgments if the deceased’s estate is represented by co-parties who are legal heirs.
- Courts will examine whether the interest of the deceased was actively and substantially pursued by existing parties, not merely whether substitution was filed.
Class II Heirs Can Sustain Litigation Without Formal Substitution
- Where co-parties are Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and share a joint interest in the subject matter, their continued participation suffices to prevent abatement.
- This applies equally to plaintiffs and defendants - the principle is not limited to one side of litigation.
Strategic Implications for Counsel
-
While formal substitution remains advisable, failure to do so will not be fatal if the deceased’s interest is clearly carried forward by existing parties.
-
Counsel should document and emphasize the familial relationship and joint interest of co-parties in pleadings and oral submissions to preempt abatement challenges.
-
Always include affidavits or evidence showing co-parties’ inheritance rights and continuous involvement in the litigation.
-
In appeals involving deceased parties, raise the Shivshankara and Mullick precedents early to preempt abatement arguments.
