Property Law: Supreme Court Revives Stalled Property Dispute, Addresses Abatement in Second Appeals: Om Prakash Gupta vs. Satish Chandra (2025)

Date of the Judgment: 11th February 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 183
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can a decades-old property dispute be revived after long delays and the deaths of original parties? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the specific performance of contracts for sale, where procedural lapses had led to the abatement of second appeals in the High Court. Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, in a judgment delivered on February 11, 2025, examined the circumstances under which such appeals could be restored, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented approach over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

Case Background

The case involves two civil appeals arising from separate suits for specific performance of agreements to sell property. The suits were initially dismissed by the trial court but were later decreed in favor of the plaintiffs in first appeals. The defendants then filed second appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

In Civil Appeal No. 13407 of 2024:

• Satish Chandra filed a suit against Om Prakash Gupta seeking specific performance of an agreement.
• The trial court dismissed the suit on October 7, 1974.
• Satish Chandra succeeded in the first appeal on March 31, 1977.
• Om Prakash filed a second appeal, and the High Court stayed the decree on May 11, 1977.
• Satish Chandra died on December 2, 1996. His heirs applied for substitution on January 2, 1997.
• Om Prakash died on December 8, 2001.
• The second appeal was ordered to have abated on January 2, 2007, due to no substitution application filed by Om Prakash’s heirs.
• In 2017, Satish Chandra’s heirs initiated execution proceedings.
• Om Prakash’s heirs applied for recall/restoration of the abatement order, along with applications for substitution and condonation of delay.
• The restoration application was initially allowed but later recalled on January 11, 2019.
• The High Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and substitution on February 27, 2019, leading to Civil Appeal No. 13407 of 2024.

In Civil Appeal No. 13408 of 2024:

• Smt. Rooprani, Satish Chandra’s wife, sued Om Prakash for specific performance.
• The trial court dismissed the suit on October 7, 1974.
• Rooprani won the first appeal on March 31, 1977.
• Om Prakash filed a second appeal, and the High Court stayed the decree on May 11, 1977.
• Rooprani died on May 18, 1991.
• Om Prakash died on December 8, 2001.
• The second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on November 3, 2006.
• Rooprani’s legal representatives filed for execution of the decree on September 15, 2017.
• Om Prakash’s heirs applied for recall of the dismissal order and for substitution, along with an application for condonation of delay.
• The recall application was allowed, and the second appeal was restored on May 25, 2018.
• The High Court dismissed a recall application filed by Rooprani’s heirs on January 11, 2019, but on February 27, 2019, dismissed the applications by Om Prakash’s heirs for condonation of delay and substitution, leading to Civil Appeal No. 13408 of 2024.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial suits for specific performance were dismissed by the trial court. However, in first appeals, the plaintiffs, Satish Chandra and Smt. Rooprani, succeeded, and the suits were decreed in their favor. Om Prakash Gupta then filed second appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which initially granted a stay of operation of the decrees.

Due to the deaths of the original parties and subsequent procedural delays, the second appeals faced abatement or dismissal for non-prosecution. The High Court’s decisions on applications for substitution, condonation of delay, and recall of orders led to the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Deals with the death, marriage, and insolvency of parties in a suit.
  • Rule 1: States that a suit does not abate if the right to sue survives after the death of a party.
  • Rule 3 and 4: Provide the procedure for bringing the legal representatives of the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent on record, respectively.
  • Rule 10-A: “Wherever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.” This rule was inserted in the CPC in 1976 to mitigate the hardship arising from a party not knowing about the death of the other party during the pendency of the appeal.
• Limitation Act, 1963:
  • Article 120: Prescribes a limitation period of 90 days from the date of death for filing an application to substitute the legal representative(s) of the deceased party.
  • Article 121: Stipulates a period of 60 days to file an application seeking setting aside of the abatement.
  • Section 5: Allows for condonation of delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Heirs of Om Prakash):

• The High Court erred in not granting their prayers and having the two second appeals heard on merits.
• Procedural requirements were allowed to overshadow substantive justice without proper appreciation of the materials on record.

Arguments by the Respondents (Heirs of Satish Chandra and Rooprani):

• There was no infirmity in the High Court’s orders, and no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was warranted.
• Om Prakash was negligent in pursuing the second appeals before the High Court.
• Om Prakash was aware of the deaths of Rooprani and Satish Chandra and who their heirs were, but he lacked due diligence.
• The longstanding dispute between the parties should be laid to rest by dismissing the appeals and allowing the respondents to pursue the execution applications.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. In C.A. No. 13407 of 2024, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution, and whether the second appeal could be regarded as having abated.
2. In C.A. No. 13408 of 2024, whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned orders dismissing the applications filed by the appellants seeking substitution and condonation of delay.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Principles for setting aside abatement and condoning delay:
  • Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321 (Supreme Court of India): Laid down the principles to guide courts while considering applications for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay. The Court extracted key passages emphasizing the need for a liberal and pragmatic approach, especially in cases involving unintended lapses and lawyer’s errors.
• Application for substitution:
  • Union of India v. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215 (Supreme Court of India): Clarified that there is no legal requirement that only the plaintiff can make an application for substitution upon the death of a defendant. An application by the heir/legal representative of the deceased defendant is also valid.
• Justice-oriented approach in interpreting the CPC:
  • Chinnammal v. P. Arumugham (1990) 1 SCC 513 (Supreme Court of India): Emphasized that the Code of Civil Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and should be construed to render justice wherever reasonably possible.
• Power of the Supreme Court to correct manifest illegality:
  • A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. (2011) 7 SCC 616 (Supreme Court of India): Discussed the Supreme Court’s powers to make any order to cure a manifest illegality and avoid travesty of justice, even in the absence of a challenge to such order.
• Reading a prayer for setting aside abatement in a prayer for substitution:
  • Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691 (Supreme Court of India): Reiterated the need for a justice-oriented approach and held that a prayer to bring on record heir(s)/legal representative(s) can also be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement.
• Purpose of Rule 10-A of Order XXII, CPC:
  • Gangadhar v. Raj Kumar (1984) 1 SCC 121 (Supreme Court of India): Explained that Rule 10-A was introduced to mitigate the hardship arising from a party not knowing about the death of the other party during the pendency of the appeal.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court that had resulted in the abatement or dismissal of the second appeals. The Court emphasized a justice-oriented approach, prioritizing the resolution of the dispute on its merits over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

Treatment of Authorities by the Court

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities to support its reasoning:

• Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321: The Court cited this case to emphasize the principles guiding courts in considering applications for setting aside abatement and condoning delay, particularly the need for a liberal and pragmatic approach.
• Union of India v. Ram Charan AIR 1964 SC 215: This authority was used to clarify that an application for substitution can be made by either the plaintiff or the heir/legal representative of the deceased defendant.
• Chinnammal v. P. Arumugham (1990) 1 SCC 513: The Court invoked this case to underscore the importance of a justice-oriented approach in interpreting the Code of Civil Procedure.
• A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. (2011) 7 SCC 616: This authority was cited to highlight the Supreme Court’s power to correct manifest illegality and avoid travesty of justice, even in the absence of a challenge to the relevant order.
• Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691: The Court relied on this case to support the view that a prayer for setting aside abatement can be read in a prayer for substitution.
• Gangadhar v. Raj Kumar (1984) 1 SCC 121: This authority was cited to explain the purpose and intent of Rule 10-A of Order XXII, CPC.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following considerations:

• The need for a justice-oriented approach over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.
• The importance of resolving disputes on their merits.
• The potential for injustice if procedural lapses were allowed to prevent a fair hearing.
• The recognition that the High Court had been duly informed of the deaths of the original parties and that substitution had been prayed for by the heirs.
• The intent of Rule 10-A of Order XXII, CPC, to ensure that parties are informed of the death of their opponents.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and whether the second appeal could be regarded as having abated (C.A. No. 13407 of 2024)

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the applications for substitution and condonation of delay (C.A. No. 13408 of 2024)

Key Takeaways

• Courts should adopt a justice-oriented approach, especially in cases involving procedural delays and abatement.
• An application for substitution can be made by either the plaintiff or the legal representatives of the deceased defendant.
• Rule 10-A of Order XXII, CPC, places a duty on pleaders to inform the court about the death of a party.
• A prayer for setting aside abatement can be read in a prayer for substitution.

Directions

The Supreme Court requested the roster bench of the High Court to consider the second appeals on priority and decide them, subject to its convenience, preferably within 6 months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of a justice-oriented approach in dealing with procedural lapses and clarified that an application for substitution can be made by either party. The Court also emphasized the duty of pleaders to inform the court about the death of a party, as per Rule 10-A of Order XXII, CPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders and restoring the second appeals. The Court emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach and directed the High Court to hear the appeals on priority.