Delay in Impleading Legal Heirs No Ground to Dismiss Entire Revision: Supreme Court Restores Civil Revision, Condemns Overtechnical Approach

“Abatement as to one respondent cannot result in abatement of the entire revision when the contest survives,” In a clear message that procedural lapses must not override substantive justice, the Supreme Court, in Phool Singh v. Randheer Singh & Others, allowed a civil appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order which had dismissed an entire revision petition as abated, solely due to delayed impleadment of the legal heirs of a deceased respondent.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran firmly rejected what it described as a legally unsustainable approach by the High Court. “The High Court clearly erred in dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because the legal heirs of one of the respondents were not impleaded within time after his death.”

The Court restored the civil revision, permitted impleadment of the legal heirs, and held that the surviving contest required adjudication. “Despite the delay, the failure to implead one respondent’s legal heirs should not defeat the entire proceeding, especially when the main contest continues between the appellant and the first respondent.”

“Revision Can’t Be Dismissed As Abated When Cause Survives”

“Even if the revision is abated as against the second respondent, there is no cause to dismiss the petition as such, since the contesting party was the first respondent,” the Court emphasized

The case concerned a family property dispute stemming from a 1996 compromise decree. The appellant, Phool Singh, had moved to set aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed. His appeal also failed, prompting a revision petition before the High Court. During pendency of the revision, one of the three respondents—his uncle Aman Singh—died in 2017. However, Phool Singh failed to file an application for impleadment of Aman Singh’s legal heirs until 2024, long after his death was notified in court in 2022.

The High Court, treating the delay as fatal, dismissed the entire revision as abated.

The Supreme Court found this approach legally flawed and inequitable.

“True, there was substantial delay in filing the application for impleadment… but what is pertinent is that merely because the second respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded, the revision could not stand abated against the other respondents.”

The Court also noted that the legal heirs of the deceased respondent were ready and willing to participate in the proceedings and had filed a separate appeal from the High Court’s order. The Bench emphasized that their presence strengthened the case for full adjudication.

“Laxity of Counsel Should Not Defeat Substantive Justice”

“Despite the lapse by the revision petitioner in not impleading legal heirs promptly, the High Court was duty-bound to adjudicate the surviving dispute on merits,” said the Supreme Court

The Court acknowledged the appellant’s failure to act promptly, but found it insufficient to extinguish the entire litigation.

“We make this order to ensure that there is a proper adjudication of the issue. Despite laxity of the appellant… the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent are entitled to agitate their cause.”

Invoking equity and fair play, the Bench cautioned against a purely technical interpretation of the law that frustrates justice.

Noting that the main dispute between family members over execution of a compromise decree still survived, the Court held that restoration of the revision petition was necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Supreme Court Directs High Court to Hear Matter on Merits

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and directed that the parties appear before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on January 23, 2026, for further proceedings in the restored revision.

The Court reiterated that the matter should now be heard “on its own merits”, with due participation of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent.

“The appeals are allowed with the above directions… The revision shall be considered on its own merits,” the Bench ordered, closing all pending applications.

Date of Decision: 17 December 2025