Duty Under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC Is Not An Empty Formality – Courts Must Prevent Abuse Of Process Through Suppression Of Death : Supreme Court

“No One Should Be Allowed To Reap The Benefit Of Their Own Lapse”, Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling emphatically reiterated that “no one should be allowed to reap the benefit of their own lapse.” The Court set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court which had dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal on the ground of abatement due to non-substitution of deceased parties. The Supreme Court clarified that deliberate suppression of death by the defendants and their counsel during appellate proceedings cannot be used to invalidate a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

In a strong reaffirmation of procedural fairness and equitable principles, the Supreme Court observed that “Order XXII Rule 10A CPC is introduced to avoid procedural technicalities scoring a march over substantive justice.”

The judgment marks a crucial development in civil litigation jurisprudence concerning abatement and the ethical obligations of pleaders.

Supreme Court Condemns High Court’s Procedural Errors: “Such Procedural Errors Are Not Expected At The Level Of Any High Court”

The controversy arose from a title and possession dispute where the trial court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim in 1989. However, in 2009, the First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s findings, decreeing title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs. The High Court, while entertaining the second appeal, set aside the appellate decree solely on the technical ground that certain defendants had passed away during the pendency of the first appeal and their legal heirs had not been brought on record.

The Supreme Court, however, expressed its disapproval in unambiguous terms:

“We regret to state that we are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court dealt with the Second Appeal and more particularly the understanding of the High Court as regards the position of law on the issues in question. Such procedural errors are not expected at the level of any High Court.”

Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the High Court had completely disregarded the operation of Order XXII Rule 10A CPC which imposes a duty on pleaders to inform the court of the death of a party. The Supreme Court held that it was the defendants who failed in their legal obligation by suppressing the death of certain respondents before the First Appellate Court and, therefore, could not be permitted to use their omission to defeat the plaintiffs’ rights.

“No Party Can Be Permitted To Take Advantage Of Their Own Wrong”: Apex Court Affirms Application Of Equity Maxim In Abatement Disputes

Relying upon well-established equitable maxims, the Court declared:

“The principle that no party can take advantage of his own wrong i.e. ‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’ is squarely attracted in the event of a failure in complying with the provision of Rule 10A of Order XXII of the CPC, and any abatement as a result of such wrongdoing or failure ought not to be validated by the courts.”

The Court drew a significant distinction between two well-known equitable principles — ‘ex injuria jus non oritur’ (no right arises from a wrong) and ‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’ (no one can derive an advantage from their own wrong). It clarified that the present case involved the second maxim, since the defendants were attempting to gain an advantage — abatement of appeal — solely due to their own failure to discharge their duty under Rule 10A.

Referring to the landmark precedent in Gangadhar v. Raj Kumar (1984) 1 SCC 121, the Court reminded that Rule 10A was introduced “to mitigate the hardship arising from the fact that the party to a suit or appeal, may not come to know about the death of the other party during the pendency of such suit or appeal.”

“Such Suppression Of Death Amounts To Abuse Of Process”: Court Warns Against Tactical Silence Of Parties In Civil Proceedings

The Court was particularly critical of the fact that the defendants, despite knowing of the deaths during the first appellate proceedings, chose not to disclose this fact and continued to contest the matter on merits. This deliberate silence was condemned as a misuse of court process:

“It appears that the defendants being fully aware of the death of some of the respondents kept quiet and allowed the First Appellate Court to proceed with the hearing of the First Appeal on merits. When the First Appeal came to be allowed and the matter reached the High Court in Second Appeal, the issue as regards the abatement came to be raised.”

The Court drew parallels with its previous decision in P. Jesaya v. Sub-Collector (2004) 13 SCC 431 where it had similarly rejected the argument of abatement when a party suppressed the fact of death until an adverse order was passed.

Referring to this conduct, the Court noted: “It is clear that the attempt was to see whether a favourable order could be obtained… if the order went against them, then thereafter this would be made a ground for having that order set aside. This is in effect an attempt to take not just the other side but also the court for a ride. These sort of tactics must not be permitted to prevail.”

Judgment Directs Fresh Hearing Before High Court: Duty Cast Upon Courts To Consider Nature Of Decree And Provide Opportunity To Rectify Procedural Lapses

The Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, issued a detailed roadmap for fresh adjudication. The matter was remanded to the High Court with specific instructions:

“The Second Appeal No. 190 of 2008 is restored to its original file and shall be heard afresh and decided on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.”

The Court directed the High Court to examine whether the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was joint and indivisible. It observed:

“If the High Court reaches the conclusion that the decree is joint and indivisible and with the death of some of the defendants, the entire First Appeal could be said to have abated then it shall remand the matter to the First Appellate Court so as to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to prefer an appropriate application for setting aside of the abatement and bring the legal heirs on record.”

However, if it is found that the decree is divisible, the High Court was instructed to proceed with hearing the Second Appeal on merits.

Supreme Court Mandates Expeditious Disposal To Prevent Perpetuation Of Injustice

Taking note of the inordinate delay in the matter dating back to 1984, the Court directed the High Court to conclude the second appeal within a fixed timeframe:

“Since this litigation is of 1984, we direct the High Court to take up the Second Appeal No. 190 of 2008 for fresh hearing and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.”

In an effort to ensure uniform application of this important principle across the judiciary, the Court further ordered:

“The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts.”

This judgment provides crucial clarification on the duties of pleaders under Rule 10A, strengthens the principle of equitable justice over procedural formalities, and sends a strong message against tactical misuse of procedural rules.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2025