Procedural Compliance Must Not Trump Substantive Justice  – Supreme Court Quashes Abatement of Second Appeals

A Suit Does Not Abate When Substitution Application Is Already Filed – High Court Committed a Grave Error - Supreme Court of India set aside the abatement orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in two second appeals arising from specific performance suits. The Court held that the High Court mechanically dismissed the appeals without considering the valid substitution applications already filed by the opposing party and failed to adopt a justice-oriented approach while dealing with procedural delays.

Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the bench, observed, "Procedural requirements have been allowed to steal a march over substantive justice. Courts must not become mere slaves to technicalities, especially when the right to sue survives and the case involves property rights that should be adjudicated on merits."

The Court found that the High Court erroneously declared the appeals abated, despite the fact that the heirs of the deceased respondents had already moved an application for substitution. The Supreme Court held, "Order XXII of the CPC does not require that substitution applications must be filed only by the appellant. If a valid application is already on record, the case should not be declared abated merely because the opposing party did not file another application."

High Court Declares Appeals Abated Despite Pending Substitution Applications

The dispute arose from two second appeals pending before the Allahabad High Court, filed by Om Prakash Gupta against Satish Chandra and Rooprani, seeking to challenge decrees for specific performance.

The litigation had dragged on for decades, during which both original litigants passed away. The heirs of Satish Chandra and Rooprani duly filed applications for substitution in the second appeals. However, Om Prakash also passed away, and his heirs did not file a separate application for substitution within the prescribed period.

Despite the fact that an application for substitution was already pending, the High Court, by its order dated January 2, 2007, declared the second appeals abated, reasoning that no application for substitution had been filed by Om Prakash’s heirs. The Supreme Court found this reasoning fundamentally flawed, stating: "When an application for substitution has been filed by the heirs of the respondent, the case does not abate merely because the appellant's heirs did not file another application. Courts must not insist on redundant applications that serve no purpose other than delaying justice."

The heirs of Om Prakash later moved applications for recall and restoration of the appeals. Initially, the High Court restored the appeals, but in 2019, it once again declared them abated, citing non-compliance with procedural formalities regarding delay condonation and substitution.

"Courts Must Be Guardians of Justice, Not Arbiters of Procedural Technicalities"

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s overly technical approach, stating: "The purpose of Order XXII CPC is to ensure continuity of litigation when the right to sue survives, not to impose procedural roadblocks that defeat the ends of justice. If a party’s heirs have already entered the record through a substitution application, the appeal should not abate simply because the other side has not duplicated the same process."

Referring to Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma, (2008) 8 SCC 321, the Court reaffirmed that: "Courts must adopt a pragmatic, liberal approach in condoning delay in substitution applications, especially when the delay is not due to deliberate inaction or malafide intent. The goal is to ensure that matters are decided on merits, not dismissed on technical grounds."

Rule 10-A of Order XXII CPC – Pleader’s Duty to Inform Court of Death of a Party

The Supreme Court also addressed the failure of the pleader representing the deceased parties to formally notify the court of their client’s death, as required under Rule 10-A of Order XXII CPC.

Justice Datta remarked, "Rule 10-A was introduced to prevent precisely the kind of procedural injustice we are witnessing in this case. The responsibility of informing the court of a party’s death lies with their pleader, failing which the opposing party cannot be blamed for lack of knowledge."

The Court found that the notice of death of Rooprani was buried in an unrelated affidavit, which was not sufficient to meet the requirement of Rule 10-A. It held: "Merely mentioning a party’s death in an obscure corner of an affidavit does not constitute formal notice under Rule 10-A. The court must ensure that death is recorded in an official order and that the opposing party is notified explicitly."

Since Om Prakash’s heirs were never properly informed of Rooprani’s death, the delay in filing their substitution application was justified, and the High Court erred in treating it as negligence.

"A Prayer for Substitution Inherently Includes a Prayer for Setting Aside Abatement"

Another crucial issue addressed by the Supreme Court was the technical rejection of the substitution applications on the ground that they did not expressly include a prayer for setting aside abatement.

Referring to Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini, (2003) 10 SCC 691, the Court held: "A simple prayer for substitution should be construed as an implicit request to set aside abatement. Courts must not insist on hyper-technical compliance when the intent is clear."

The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider this principle, which resulted in an erroneous rejection of the appellants' applications.

Supreme Court Restores Second Appeals, Directs Expedited Hearing

Setting aside the High Court’s erroneous abatement orders, the Supreme Court restored both second appeals, directing the Allahabad High Court to dispose of them on priority within six months."Given the extraordinary delay in these cases, we direct the High Court to hear and decide the second appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months," the Court ordered.

"Procedural Rigidity Must Not Defeat Justice"

This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s long-stnding principle that procedural law is meant to serve the cause of justice, not defeat it. The Court reaffirmed that:

• An appeal does not abate when a valid substitution application is already on record.

• The duty to inform the court about a party’s death lies with their pleader under Rule 10-A CPC.

• Courts must liberally condone delays in substitution matters, especially in cases involving prolonged litigation.

• A prayer for substitution inherently includes a prayer for setting aside abatement.

The judgment sends a strong message that technical procedural lapses should never become a weapon to defeat justice. As Justice Datta aptly concluded, "Justice must always take precedence over formality. The courtroom is not a bureaucratic office where paperwork matters more than truth."

Date of Decision: February 11, 2025