The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that an appeal does not abate under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure merely because not all legal representatives of a deceased party are brought on record, provided the estate is sufficiently represented. This ruling reinforces a long-standing principle that procedural technicalities must not override substantive justice when the interests of the deceased are adequately protected.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
This appeal arises from a property dispute between the legal representatives of Ganga Devi (deceased) and Bansi Lal (deceased), with the central issue being the ownership and possession of land in a rural area of Himachal Pradesh. The original suit was filed by Ganga Devi against Bansi Lal and others. After the death of Bansi Lal during the pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives were required to be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. However, the appellants sought to substitute only certain legal representatives of Bansi Lal’s son, Om Prakash, who had also died during the pendency of the appeal.
Key Facts
- The original suit was filed in 2007
- The appeal (RSA No. 283 of 2009) was filed before the High Court after the trial court’s decree
- Bansi Lal died on an undisclosed date prior to 2025
- Om Prakash, son of Bansi Lal and a respondent in the appeal, died on 27.06.2025
- The appellants became aware of Om Prakash’s death on 27.06.2025
- The appellants traveled to Shimla in September 2025 to file an application for substitution
- At that time, they possessed only a copy of the Pariwar Register, not a certified Death Certificate
- The first Death Certificate obtained contained overwriting and was rejected by court staff
- A fresh Death Certificate was procured subsequently
- The application for substitution was filed on 18.05.2025 (date appears inconsistent with context; likely filed in 2026)
- Respondents allege Om Prakash was survived by two additional legal heirs: Kiren Bala and Prem Lata
- Both parties are from the same village, and respondents argue appellants must have known of the death and delayed filing maliciously
Procedural History
- 2007: Original suit filed by Ganga Devi against Bansi Lal and others
- 2009: Appeal filed as RSA No. 283 of 2009 before the High Court
- 27.06.2025: Death of Om Prakash, respondent No. 1(a)
- September 2025: Appellants arrived in Shimla to file substitution application
- Early 2026: First Death Certificate obtained, rejected due to overwriting
- Mid-2026: Fresh Death Certificate obtained
- CMP(M) No. 2016 of 2025: Application for substitution filed
- 24.04.2026: Case reserved for judgment
- 05.06.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
The appellants contended that the estate of Om Prakash was sufficiently represented by the legal representatives already on record, including Bansi Lal’s other heirs who were jointly defending the appeal. They argued that bringing all legal heirs was unnecessary and that the delay was due to genuine administrative obstacles.
The respondents contended that Order 22 Rule 4 CPC mandates substitution of all legal representatives, and failure to do so results in automatic abatement. They further alleged mala fide delay, given the shared village residence and knowledge of death.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought to have the legal representatives named in Para-1 of the application brought on record, and to set aside the alleged abatement of the appeal. They also sought permission to amend the memo of parties and proceed with the appeal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appeal under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure abates solely because not all legal representatives of a deceased party are brought on record, when the estate is otherwise sufficiently represented by those already on record.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants relied on Kishori Lal v. Gopal (2026 INSC 48) and Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char (2023) 13 SCC 1 to argue that the estate of Om Prakash was fully and substantially represented by the existing respondents, who were joint defendants and co-heirs. They emphasized that the delay in filing was due to genuine difficulties in obtaining a certified Death Certificate, supported by affidavit, and that the principle of substantial justice overrides technical abatement.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents contended that Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is mandatory and requires substitution of all legal representatives. They cited the principle that abatement is automatic upon failure to substitute, and argued that the appellants’ delay was inexcusable given their proximity to the deceased’s village and knowledge of his death since June 2025.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the jurisprudence on substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. It emphasized that the purpose of the rule is not to penalize parties for procedural lapses, but to ensure that the estate of the deceased is adequately represented in litigation.
"The estate of the deceased was thus sufficiently represented. If the appellant had not have filed any application to bring on record the daughters and the widow of the deceased, the appeal would not have abated under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as held by this Court in Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram."
The Court cited Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char to affirm that when the deceased’s interest is jointly defended by other parties who are also legal representatives, the failure to implead every heir does not cause abatement. It further relied on State of A.P. v. Pratap Karan, which held that where co-sharers continue to prosecute the claim, the appeal survives even without substitution of all heirs.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the appellants acted mala fide. It noted that the appellants had acted promptly upon obtaining a valid Death Certificate and that the initial rejection of the certificate due to overwriting constituted a legitimate impediment. The Court held that the delay was adequately explained and that the interests of justice required the application to be allowed.
The Verdict
The application was allowed. The legal representatives named in Para-1 of the application were ordered to be brought on record. The Court directed that the memo of parties be amended within two weeks and the matter be listed for hearing in due course.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Substantial Representation Overrides Technical Compliance
- Practitioners need not file applications to bring on record every legal heir if the estate is already adequately represented by existing parties
- Courts will examine the nature of the interest and whether the remaining parties are co-heirs or joint defendants with a common stake
- This principle applies equally to plaintiffs and defendants
Delay Due to Administrative Hurdles Is Sufficient Cause
- Failure to obtain a certified Death Certificate due to clerical errors or bureaucratic delays qualifies as sufficient cause under Order 22 Rule 4
- Affidavits detailing the steps taken to obtain documentation are sufficient to justify delay
- Mere proximity to the deceased’s residence does not establish knowledge or mala fide intent
Procedural Flexibility in Civil Appeals
- The judgment reinforces that CPC provisions are procedural tools, not traps for unwary litigants
- Courts must prioritize substantive justice over rigid adherence to form
- This ruling provides a clear precedent for resisting abatement applications in multi-heir cases
