Supreme Court clarifies abatement of suit and its effect on appeals: Maringmei Acham vs. M Maringmei Khuripou (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 03 November 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 1417

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a legal battle continue if the original claimant dies and their legal heirs aren’t immediately substituted in the lawsuit? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent civil appeal, clarifying the relationship between a suit’s abatement and the fate of related appeals. This case revolves around a dispute over village chiefship and the legal implications of a plaintiff’s death during the proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with the majority opinion authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case began with Maringmei Thaitoungam, who claimed to be the hereditary chief of Lamdan Kabui village since 1972, based on Rongmei Kabui Customary Law. He filed Original (Declaratory) Suit No. 3 of 2014 on 10 March 2014, seeking a declaration of his chiefship and to nullify an order by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur, which recognized the respondent, Maringmei Khuripou, as the new chief. Thaitoungam also sought an injunction against the respondent to prevent him from acting as chief and felling trees.

Thaitoungam’s application for a temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court, leading to Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2014 before the District Judge. During the pendency of this appeal, Thaitoungam passed away on 7 September 2014. His son, Maringmei Acham (the appellant), then sought to be impleaded as his legal representative, which was allowed on 18 September 2014.

Subsequently, on 23 December 2014, the respondent filed Original (Injunction) Suit No. 39 of 2014, seeking to restrain the appellant from acting as village chief. The respondent also obtained a temporary injunction, which was challenged by the appellant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2015. The High Court then ordered verification of whether proper substitution had taken place in the original suit after Thaitoungam’s death. The two civil miscellaneous appeals were amalgamated by the order of the Court on 27 November 2018, which was affirmed on 15 April 2019. The District Judge held the appeals to be maintainable on 13 May 2019. This led to the filing of a revision petition, culminating in the impugned order dated 11 March 2021.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court rejected Maringmei Thaitoungam’s application for a temporary injunction, leading to an appeal before the District Judge. During the pendency of this appeal, Thaitoungam died. His son, Maringmei Acham, was brought on record as his legal representative in the appeal. Subsequently, Maringmei Khuripou filed a separate suit seeking an injunction against Maringmei Acham, which was granted. This led to another appeal. The High Court, in its order dated 11 March 2021, held that since the original suit filed by Thaitoungam had abated due to his death and the failure to substitute his legal representatives within the prescribed time, the appeals arising from the interlocutory orders in the suit could not be maintained. The High Court reasoned that the basis of the appeal was demolished as the suit itself had abated. The High Court did not consider the effect of the order by which the District Court had in the civil miscellaneous appeal brought on record the appellant as legal representative of the original plaintiff-appellant’s father. The High Court also did not consider the contention of the respondent that on the death of the original plaintiff, the relief which was purely personal to him could not have been allowed to be pursued by the appellant-son of the original plaintiff in the appeal.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Rules 3, 4, and 11, which deal with the abatement of suits and appeals upon the death of a party. The Court noted that the doctrine of abatement applies equally to suits and appeals. The relevant provisions of the CPC as discussed in the judgment are:

• Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC: Deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.
• Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC: Deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.
• Order XXII Rule 11 of the CPC: States that in the application of the said Rules 3 and 4 to an appeal, instead of “plaintiff” and “defendant”, “appellant” and “respondent” have to be read in those rules.

The Court also referred to the principle that if legal representatives are brought on record at one stage of the suit, it enures for the benefit of all subsequent stages of the suit. The Court observed that an appeal is a continuation of the suit and the order made therein would be made in the suit itself. The Court also considered the effect of an order in an appeal against an interlocutory order on the suit.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the High Court’s approach was incorrect. The High Court had correctly noted that the appellant had a right to continue the suit filed by his father. However, the High Court then erroneously concluded that the suit’s abatement due to the father’s death meant that nothing survived for consideration in the appeal against the refusal of injunction.
• The appellant argued that the legal position is that if legal representatives are brought on record at one stage of the suit, it enures for all subsequent stages. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe & Others [AIR 1965 SC 1794], which clearly laid down this principle.
• The appellant submitted that the order of the District Court bringing the appellant on record as the legal representative in the civil miscellaneous appeal should be considered sufficient for the continuation of the suit, despite the fact that no substitution had taken place in the original suit.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that while the legal position canvassed by the appellant was correct, the High Court had not considered his complaint in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
• The respondent contended that the relief sought by the original plaintiff (Thaitoungam) was personal to him and could not be pursued by his son (the appellant) after his death.
• The respondent prayed that the matter be sent back to the High Court for consideration of his contention that the appeal before the District Judge was not maintainable due to the death of the original plaintiff.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in relying on the principle that impleadment at one stage of a suit enures to the benefit of all subsequent stages, even when the impleadment was in an appeal against an interlocutory order, and not the suit itself. The respondent’s argument was innovative in the sense that he argued that the relief was personal to the original plaintiff and could not be pursued by his son after his death.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a dedicated section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the abatement of the original suit due to the death of the sole plaintiff extinguished the appeals arising from interlocutory orders in that suit, despite the legal representative being brought on record in the appeal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe & Others [AIR 1965 SC 1794]* was followed by the court. The Court reiterated the principle that an order bringing legal representatives on record at one stage of the suit enures for subsequent stages of the suit. The Court held that this principle applies even when the impleadment occurs in an appeal against an interlocutory order.
• The Court considered Order XXII Rules 3, 4, and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the process of abatement and substitution of legal representatives.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspect of the law concerning abatement and substitution of legal representatives. The Court emphasized that the impleadment of the legal representative in the appeal, even if it was against an interlocutory order, was sufficient to keep the suit alive. The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the principle that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and therefore, an order made in the appeal is considered to be an order made in the suit itself. The Court also relied on its earlier judgment in Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe & Others [AIR 1965 SC 1794], which had clearly laid down this principle. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the suit, which had a valid cause of action, was not extinguished due to a procedural lapse.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was predominantly based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The Court’s focus was on ensuring the correct application of procedural law and upholding the principle that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. The decision reflects a greater emphasis on legal principles over the factual matrix.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court. The Court held that the impleadment of the appellant as the legal representative in the appeal against the refusal of the temporary injunction enured to the benefit of the suit itself. The Court stated:

“In other words, in view of the fact that the legal representative has been brought on record in appeal though from an interlocutory order, such impleadment will enure towards the proceedings in the suit itself.”

The Court further clarified:

“To make it further clear, the failure to get the appellant impleaded in the suit itself would not be fatal to the continued prosecution of the suit. The suit, therefore, must be proceeded with and it cannot be extinguished by virtue of the abatement which the High Court attributes on account of the death of the sole plaintiff and non impleadment in the suit of his legal representative.”

The Court also directed that Original (Declaratory) Suit No. 3 of 2014 and Original (Injunction) Suit No. 39 of 2014 be consolidated and decided within eight months. The Court clarified that it had not made any pronouncement on the merits of the contentions of the parties, leaving them open for consideration by the trial court.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Impleading a legal representative in an appeal arising from an interlocutory order in a suit is sufficient to keep the suit alive, even if the legal representative is not formally substituted in the suit itself.
• An appeal is considered a continuation of the suit, and orders passed in the appeal are considered to be orders in the suit itself.
• Failure to substitute legal representatives in the suit itself is not fatal if they are impleaded in an appeal arising from an interlocutory order in the suit.
• The Supreme Court has clarified that the principle laid down in Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe & Others [AIR 1965 SC 1794] applies even when the impleadment occurs in an appeal against an interlocutory order, and not the suit itself.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Original (Declaratory) Suit No. 3 of 2014 and Original (Injunction) Suit No. 39 of 2014 shall be consolidated and the cases be disposed of as early as possible and within a period of eight months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Churachandpur.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the impleadment of a legal representative in an appeal arising from an interlocutory order in a suit enures to the benefit of the suit itself. This clarifies the position of law that even if the legal representative has not been formally substituted in the suit, the impleadment in the appeal is sufficient to keep the suit alive. This judgment reinforces the principle laid down in Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe & Others [AIR 1965 SC 1794] and applies it to a situation where the impleadment occurs in an appeal against an interlocutory order.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Maringmei Acham vs. M Maringmei Khuripou clarifies that the abatement of a suit due to the death of the sole plaintiff does not necessarily extinguish appeals arising from interlocutory orders in that suit. The Court held that if the legal representative is brought on record in the appeal, it enures to the benefit of the suit itself, ensuring the continuation of the legal proceedings. This decision emphasizes the importance of procedural law and its application in ensuring access to justice.