Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court

"The mere fact that the dispute is between a landlord and a tenant, or that the matter is pending before the Judge, Small Causes Court, does not, by itself, render the procedural provisions contained in the Rules framed under the 1972 Act applicable to the suit." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated 07 October 2026, held that the procedure for substitution of legal representatives in a suit pending before a Court of Small Causes is governed by Order XXII of the CPC, provided the premises in question are not governed by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

A bench of Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. observed that "the statutory source and character of the proceeding must first be identified," emphasizing that the procedural rules of a special enactment cannot be invoked unless the suit falls within the statutory field of that enactment.

The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor, which had allowed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC to bring the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff on record in an SCC suit for eviction. The petitioners argued that the suit had abated because the substitution application was filed beyond the thirty-day limitation period prescribed under Rule 25 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Rules, 1972. The Revisional Court had previously upheld the trial court's order, leading to the current petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The primary question before the court was whether Rule 25 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Rules, 1972, governs substitution in an SCC suit, or if the provisions of the CPC apply. The court was also tasked with determining whether the failure to apply for substitution within one month of the plaintiff's death resulted in the abatement of the suit under the aforementioned Rules.

The court clarified that the applicability of Rule 25 of the 1972 Rules is not automatic simply because a matter is pending before a Small Causes Court or involves a landlord-tenant dispute. The court noted that in the present case, the plaint indicated the premises were newly constructed, thereby excluding the application of the 1972 Act. Consequently, the procedural rigors of Rule 25 were held to be inapplicable.

Court Clarifies Scope Of CPC In SCC Suits

The court underscored that Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, mandates that the procedure prescribed in the CPC applies to SCC suits unless explicitly excluded. The bench observed that while Order L Rule 1 CPC specifically lists provisions of the Code that do not extend to Small Causes Courts, Order XXII is conspicuously absent from this list of exclusions.

"Where the legislature intended particular provisions of the CPC not to apply to a Court of Small Causes, it has expressly so provided. No such exclusion has been made in respect of Order XXII."

The bench further reasoned that since the application for substitution was filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, it was governed by the limitation period specified in Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the application was filed within ninety days of the plaintiff’s death, the court held that the suit had not abated. The contention that the suit stood abated upon the expiry of thirty days was dismissed as it relied on the erroneous premise that Rule 25 of the 1972 Rules applied to the proceedings.

No Jurisdictional Error In Substitution Order

In its final analysis, the court concluded that the trial court committed no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in allowing the substitution. It affirmed that the legal heirs were entitled to continue the pending litigation and that the substantive rights of the parties remained open for adjudication on merits. The petition was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the ruling was confined to the procedural validity of the substitution and did not touch upon the merits of the underlying eviction suit.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026