The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that deliberate suppression of known facts regarding a party’s death, coupled with false affidavits, disentitles a litigant to equitable relief under the Code of Civil Procedure, even where procedural rules might otherwise offer a technical remedy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Romesh Satyanarayan Sharma, filed Suit No. 68 of 1987 seeking a declaration of 2/3rd undivided ownership in a property at Pali Hill, Mumbai, and partition of the same. The defendant, Natha Singh Sant Singh Chawla, held the remaining 1/3rd share. The appellant claimed his interest through a conveyance deed dated 7.10.1981 executed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
Key Facts
- Defendant No. 1, Natha Singh Sant Singh Chawla, died on 29.10.1990.
- The appellant filed Interlocutory Notice No. 1750 of 1991 in R.A.D. Suit No. 6835 of 1980 on 12.04.1991, expressly acknowledging Defendant No. 1’s death and seeking to implead his heirs.
- Orders dated 11.09.1992 (in S.C. Suit No. 5690 of 1981) and 31.07.1992 (in Suit No. 4818 of 1992) reflect that the appellant was actively engaged in litigation where Defendant No. 1’s death was acknowledged and acted upon.
- Defendant No. 2 died on 12.01.1995; Defendant No. 3 died on 09.09.2011.
- The appellant was incarcerated in Tihar Jail from 20.10.1998 to 2011.
- In January 2013, the appellant filed Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013 seeking to implead heirs of Defendant No. 1 and condone delay.
- In the affidavit dated 15.01.2013, the appellant falsely deposed that he became aware of Defendant No. 1’s death only during the hearing of Suit No. 1711 of 1994 in the High Court.
- Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013 was disposed of as ‘not pressed’ on 11.03.2015 without any liberty to file a fresh application.
- On 11.03.2015, the appellant filed Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015, naming heirs of Defendant No. 1 but omitting prayers for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement.
- On 13.10.2015, the appellant filed Chamber Summons No. 1926 of 2015 to amend the earlier application and add those prayers.
- In the amended affidavit dated 2015, the appellant claimed he learned of Defendant No. 1’s death only in 2011 - 2012, during litigation in Suit No. 2097 of 2011.
Procedural History
- 29.10.1990: Death of Defendant No. 1, Natha Singh Sant Singh Chawla.
- 12.04.1991: Appellant files Interlocutory Notice No. 1750 of 1991 in R.A.D. Suit No. 6835 of 1980, acknowledging death and seeking to implead heirs.
- 11.09.1992: Order passed in S.C. Suit No. 5690 of 1981 reflecting awareness of Defendant No. 1’s death.
- 31.07.1992: Order passed in Suit No. 4818 of 1992 confirming awareness of death.
- 20.10.1998: Appellant incarcerated in Tihar Jail.
- 08.10.2013: Death of Gurucharan Singh Natha Singh Chawla (Respondent No. 1 in Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013).
- 11.03.2015: Chamber Summons No. 250 of 2013 disposed of as ‘not pressed’.
- 11.03.2015: Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015 filed.
- 13.10.2015: Chamber Summons No. 1926 of 2015 filed to amend relief.
- 12.04.2019: Trial Court allows amendment under Chamber Summons No. 1926 of 2015.
- 13.09.2019: Trial Court dismisses Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015, holding appellant came with unclean hands, made false oath, and suit had abated.
- 16.04.2026: Bombay High Court dismisses appeal and enhances costs.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (i) setting aside of abatement of Suit No. 68 of 1987; (ii) condonation of delay in filing the application; (iii) impleading heirs of Defendant No. 1 as defendants; (iv) deletion of names of deceased Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without impleading their heirs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a plaintiff who has known since 1991 about the death of a defendant and has actively impleaded his heirs in other proceedings can claim relief under Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC to excuse a 24-year delay in bringing those heirs on record in a pending suit, particularly when he has made a false statement on oath regarding his knowledge.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that Order XXII Rule 10A CPC imposes a duty on the pleader of the deceased party to inform the court, and since the heirs of Defendant No. 1 failed to notify the appellant, the suit could not be deemed abated. He contended that the appellant’s incarceration from 1998 to 2011 and his reliance on an illiterate attorney excused the delay. He further argued that abatement is not automatic under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC and requires a formal court order.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel contended that the appellant’s affidavit falsely claimed ignorance of Defendant No. 1’s death until 2011 - 2012, despite clear documentary evidence from 1991 showing his awareness. He relied on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath to argue that a party with unclean hands is not entitled to equitable relief. He emphasized that Article 120 of the Limitation Act prescribed a three-year window for filing applications to set aside abatement, which had long expired, and that the appellant’s delay was neither explained nor excusable under Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously examined the documentary record and found that the appellant’s claim of ignorance was demonstrably false. The affidavit filed in Interlocutory Notice No. 1750 of 1991 explicitly acknowledged Defendant No. 1’s death and sought to implead his heirs. Subsequent court orders from 1992 further confirmed the appellant’s active participation in litigation where the death was a material fact.
"The statement of the Plaintiff on oath that he acquired knowledge of the demise of Defendant No. 1 only in 2011 - 2012 cannot be accepted. As more particularly held in Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), a party who approaches the Court with unclean hands is disentitled to any reliefs and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the proceedings."
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, holding that the provision applies only when the pleader of the deceased party fails to notify the court. Where the plaintiff himself knew of the death and had previously acted upon it, the rule offers no shield. The Court cited Binod Pathak v. Shankar Choudhary and Om Prakash Gupta v. Satish Chandra to affirm that Rule 10A cannot be invoked to circumvent a party’s own deliberate inaction.
The Court also dismissed the appellant’s plea of attorney negligence and incarceration as insufficient cause. It emphasized that the Supreme Court in Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy requires a ‘bona fide and satisfactory explanation’ for delay, not mere administrative or personal hardship. The 24-year delay, coupled with the false affidavit, rendered the appellant’s conduct unconscionable.
The Court further noted that the appellant had also deleted Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 from the suit without impleading their heirs, further undermining his claim of procedural diligence.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Trial Court’s order dismissing the Chamber Summons and enhanced the costs from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, payable by the appellant to the contesting respondents within 30 days of the order’s uploading. The Court held that the appellant’s conduct - false oath, deliberate suppression, and inordinate delay - disentitled him to any relief under Order XXII Rule 4 or Rule 10A of the CPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Affidavits Bar Equitable Relief
- Practitioners must advise clients that any false statement on oath, even if seemingly minor, will disqualify them from seeking condonation of delay or setting aside abatement.
- Courts will not tolerate litigation tactics that rely on fabricated ignorance when documentary evidence contradicts the claim.
Rule 10A CPC Is Not a Safety Net for Plaintiff’s Negligence
- Order XXII Rule 10A imposes a duty on the pleader of the deceased party, not the plaintiff.
- If the plaintiff has independent knowledge of death and has acted on it in other proceedings, Rule 10A cannot be invoked to excuse delay.
- This judgment closes a potential loophole where plaintiffs might exploit Rule 10A to avoid consequences of their own inaction.
Delay Beyond Two Decades Requires Exceptional Justification
- A delay of over 20 years in civil litigation is presumed fatal unless accompanied by compelling, documented, and credible reasons.
- Incarceration or attorney error alone, without a clear causal link to the delay, will not suffice.
- Courts will prioritize finality and certainty in litigation over speculative claims of substantial justice.
