Supreme Court clarifies procedure for substituting legal representatives in ongoing cases: Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors. (2024) INSC 352 (30 April 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 352
Judges: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Can a High Court substitute a legal representative in an ongoing case without properly considering the objections to the Trial Court’s report? The Supreme Court addressed this critical procedural question in a recent civil appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedure outlined in Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) when determining legal representatives. This judgment clarifies the role of the Appellate Court in substitution matters, ensuring a fair process for all parties involved.

Case Background

The case involves a long-standing title suit concerning property in Bihar. The original suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against Swami Shivdharmanand Ji Maharaj, among others. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 26 March 1991, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. Swami Shivdharmanand then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

During the pendency of the second appeal, Swami Shivdharmanand passed away on 20 March 1999. Two claimants emerged seeking to be substituted as his legal representatives: Swami Triyoganand Ji Maharaj and Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj. This dispute over legal representation led to a series of proceedings and appeals.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the High Court directed the Trial Court to conduct an inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC to determine the legal representative of Swami Shivdharmanand. The Trial Court concluded that Swami Satyanand was the rightful legal representative. However, the High Court, instead of making a decision based on the Trial Court’s report and the objections raised by Swami Triyoganand, allowed both Swami Satyanand and Swami Triyoganand to be substituted as legal representatives.

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court’s decision on 8 February 2018. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the matter, taking into account the Trial Court’s report and the objections raised by the parties, and to substitute only one of the claimants.

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the High Court on 30 January 2019 upheld the Trial Court’s findings and substituted Swami Satyanand as the legal representative. However, this order was passed after the death of Swami Triyoganand on 4 December 2018, and without considering the pending substitution application of Swami Triyoganand’s legal representative. Subsequently, Swami Vedvyasanand, claiming to be the legal heir of Swami Triyoganand, filed applications for substitution and recall of the order dated 30.01.2019, which were dismissed by the High Court on 19 June 2019.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s decision hinges on the interpretation of Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which addresses the determination of legal representatives in cases where a party dies during litigation. The provision states:

“Determination of question as to legal representative. — Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court: Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.”

The Supreme Court clarified that this rule mandates the court to determine who the legal representative is when such a question arises. The proviso allows the Appellate Court to seek assistance from a subordinate court but does not delegate the decision-making power.

Arguments

The primary argument revolved around the procedure followed by the High Court in substituting Swami Satyanand as the legal representative of Swami Shivdharmanand. The appellant contended that the High Court failed to properly consider the objections to the Trial Court’s report and the pending substitution application of Swami Triyoganand’s legal representative, Swami Vedvyasanand.

The appellant argued that the High Court’s order dated 30 January 2019, which substituted Swami Satyanand and dismissed the claim of Swami Triyoganand, was passed after the death of Swami Triyoganand and without considering the pending substitution application. The appellant also contended that the High Court did not discuss the evidence in support of the claim of Swami Satyanand nor did it consider the objections of the other party on such claims.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the High Court had correctly followed the procedure by relying on the Trial Court’s report, which had found Swami Satyanand to be the legal representative of Swami Shivdharmanand.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court followed the correct procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC while substituting Swami Satyanand as the legal representative of Swami Shivdharmanand.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521, where the Supreme Court explained the limited right of a legal representative, stating that the determination of a legal representative is only for the purpose of representing the estate of the deceased in the ongoing case and does not confer any right to the property.

The Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the determination of legal representatives in cases where a party dies during litigation.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to the law. The Court emphasized that while the Trial Court’s report is a relevant factor, the Appellate Court must independently assess the evidence and objections before deciding on the substitution of legal representatives. This is crucial to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that all parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Court emphasized that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted the Supreme Court’s earlier order, which had directed it to consider the Trial Court’s report and the objections of the parties. The High Court’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order was that the person who is found to be the legal representative of the deceased-appellant in an enquiry held under Order 22 Rule 5 should be substituted. The Supreme Court clarified that the Appellate Court’s role is not merely to rubber-stamp the subordinate court’s findings but to make an independent assessment.

The Court stated that the proviso to Order 22 Rule 5 does not say that the Appellate Court can direct the subordinate court to decide the question as to who would be the legal representative, it only provides that the Appellate Court can direct the subordinate court to try the question and return the records to the Appellate Court, along with the evidence and the subordinate court has then to send a report in the form of a reasoned opinion based on evidence recorded, upon which the final decision has to be made ultimately by the Appellate Court, after considering all relevant material.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had ignored the fact that the order dated 30 January 2019 was passed after the death of Swami Triyoganand and without considering the pending substitution application.

The Supreme Court quoted from Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521, stating:
“Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case.”

The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court did not discuss the evidence in support of the claim of the Respondent No. 6 nor did it consider the objections of the other party on such claims.

The Supreme Court reiterated that it was not commenting on the merits of the High Court finding on Swami Satyanand being the rightful representative in the case, but only on the procedure followed by the High Court while doing so.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 19 June 2019 and 30 January 2019 and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on substitution, emphasizing that the High Court must follow the correct procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC.

Key Takeaways

• The Appellate Court must independently assess the evidence and objections while deciding on the substitution of legal representatives.
• The Trial Court’s report is only a factor to be considered by the Appellate Court and is not binding on it.
• The Appellate Court must consider all pending substitution applications before passing an order.
• The determination of a legal representative is only for the purpose of representing the estate of the deceased in the ongoing case and does not confer any right to the property.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 19 June 2019 and 30 January 2019 of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on substitution, directing the High Court to follow the correct procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Appellate Court must independently assess the evidence and objections while deciding on the substitution of legal representatives under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC. This judgment clarifies the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Court in substitution matters and ensures a fair process for all parties involved. There is no change in the previous positions of law but a reiteration of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the law in judicial proceedings. The Court clarified that the Appellate Court has a duty to independently assess the evidence and objections before deciding on the substitution of legal representatives. The matter has been remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision on substitution, following the correct procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC.