High Court Order Dismissing Revision as Abated Is Set Aside; Revision Restored and Legal Heirs Permitted to Be Impleaded

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal challenging a High Court order which dismissed a civil revision as abated on the ground that the legal heirs of a deceased respondent were not impleaded in time. The question before the Court was whether abatement as to one respondent could justify dismissal of the entire revision and whether the legal heirs could be permitted to be impleaded despite delay.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and directed restoration of the civil revision while permitting the legal heirs of the deceased respondent to be impleaded. The Court held that abatement in respect of one party did not automatically render the entire revision abated and that the matter required adjudication on merits. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "What is pertinent is that merely because the second respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and the revision stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against the other respondents. The High Court had clearly erred in dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because the legal heirs of one of the respondents was not impleaded within time after the death of that respondent. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court impugned herein." The Court further noted that "Despite laxity of the appellant, the revision petitioner, in not having impleaded the legal heirs immediately after the death of the second respondent, who was his uncle, the legal heirs of the second respondent are entitled to agitate their cause."

Background The dispute arose from family litigation between the descendants of Rajdhar Singh. The first respondent (plaintiff) had sued the second respondent and the appellant’s brother; a compromise settlement dated 13.05.1996 produced a decree which, upon non-implementation, led to further proceedings, a remand, and a judgment and decree by the Civil Judge on 28.02.2003. The appellant later applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree; that application was dismissed and a civil miscellaneous appeal (MCA No.02-02/2007) was rejected on 13.02.2012, after which a revision was filed. The second respondent in the revision died on 26.10.2017; the death and details of legal heirs were placed on record by Annexure P-3 dated 20.04.2022. The appellant’s application to implead the legal heirs, together with an application to set aside abatement and for condonation of delay, was filed on 27.02.2024 and was found by the High Court to be grossly belated. The first respondent opposed relief, alleging dilatory tactics and lack of bona fides.

The High Court dismissed the civil revision as abated on account of non-impleadment of the deceased respondent’s legal heirs. The Supreme Court found this approach unsustainable and held that abatement in respect of one party did not justify dismissal of the entire revision when other contesting respondents remained. The legal heirs, who had filed an appeal and appeared before the Supreme Court, sought to agitate their cause. In the circumstances, the Court restored the civil revision, allowed impleadment of the legal heirs, and directed that the revision be considered on its own merits by the High Court. The appeals were allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the High Court on 23.01.2026. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1492 Case Title: Phool Singh v. Randheer Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names of advocates not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Names of advocates not indicated in the order]