Supreme Court Sets Aside Abatement, Allows Substitution and Restores Two Second Appeals for Hearing on Merits

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals by the heirs of Om Prakash Gupta challenging orders of the Allahabad High Court that recorded abatement of two second appeals and dismissed applications for substitution and condonation of delay. The appeals arose from long-running suits for specific performance instituted in the early 1970s and taken in appeal through to second appeals before the High Court.

The Court allowed both civil appeals, held that applications filed by the heirs of the deceased plaintiffs constituted valid substitution applications, set aside orders recording abatement and restored the second appeals to their original files and numbers. The Court analysed the sequence of remedies under Order XXII CPC and the Limitation Act and emphasised a justice-oriented approach while considering applications to set aside abatement. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The words ‘sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation’ should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant.” The Court further noted that Rule 10-A of Order XXII cast a duty on a pleader who became aware of a party's death to inform the Court and that courts should generally prefer deciding matters on merits rather than terminating litigation on technical grounds. The appeals were allowed and substitution of heirs of Satish Chandra and Rooprani was directed; the roster bench of the High Court was requested to decide the restored second appeals preferably within six months.

Background The disputes began with two suits (1972–73) for specific performance by Satish Chandra and by Smt. Rooprani respectively against Om Prakash Gupta and others. Trial courts dismissed the suits on 7 October 1974; first appeals succeeded and decrees were passed on 31 March 1977. Om Prakash filed two second appeals in the Allahabad High Court and a stay was granted on 11 May 1977. Satish Chandra died on 2 December 1996; his heirs filed a substitution application in January 1997. Rooprani died in 1991 and a related application by her son in 1992 mentioned he was “one of the sons of the deceased respondent Smt. Roop Rani.” Om Prakash died on 8 December 2001.

Due to a sequence of procedural orders and apparent oversight, the High Court recorded abatement of one second appeal by order dated 2 January 2007 and later, after restoration orders in 2018, declined condonation of delay and dismissed substitution applications by orders dated 27 February 2019. The heirs of Om Prakash sought recall/restoration and filed SLPs which this Court admitted in July 2019, allowing substitution and reserving judgment subject to “just exceptions.” The principal issues were whether the High Court erred in refusing condonation and substitution and whether the second appeals abated as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court applied settled principles from Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma and related authorities (including Union of India v. Ram Charan and Mithailal Dalsangar Singh) on setting aside abatement and interpreted Order XXII CPC, Rule 10-A and Articles 120–121 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that an application filed by the heirs of the deceased respondent informing the Court of death and naming heirs could be treated as a substitution application and that a prayer for bringing legal representatives on record may, in substance, be construed as a prayer for setting aside abatement. The Court found that the High Court’s failure to notice and act on the substitution application rendered the abatement order unsustainable. The abatement of both second appeals was set aside, substitution was ordered in each appeal in favour of the named heirs, and the appeals were restored to be adjudicated on merits. The Court directed the High Court to take up the second appeals on priority, preferably within six months, and made no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 183 Case Title: Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (Now deceased) & Ors.; Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa & Ors. v. Smt. Rooprani (Now deceased) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Thomas Joseph, Senior Counsel; Mr. Shekar Devessa, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghenth Basant, Senior Counsel; heirs/legal representatives of the deceased respondents (appeared)