2009 (4) TMI 904 - SC - Indian Laws

Failure to Timely Bring Legal Heirs Leads to Dismissal

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case involving the abatement of an appeal due to delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of ... Effect of abatement under Order XXII Rule 9 - Condonation of delay in setting aside abatement - Sufficient cause for delay - Duty of pleader under Order XXII Rule 10A - Distinction between pending suit and pending appeal for condonationEffect of abatement under Order XXII Rule 9 - Condonation of delay in setting aside abatement - Sufficient cause for delay - Duty of pleader under Order XXII Rule 10A - Distinction between pending suit and pending appeal for condonation - Whether the High Court was right in refusing to condone the long delay in bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondents on record and in holding that the second appeal had abated. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined Order XXII (in particular Rule 9 and Rule 10A) and the settled principles governing applications to set aside abatement. Although applications for setting aside abatement in appeals merit a liberal approach, the applicant must still establish 'sufficient cause' for not complying with the prescribed period. The Court noted established precedents that require scrutiny of explanations for delay and that mere belated knowledge of a party's death is not automatically sufficient. The special features of appeals kept pending in High Courts (long periods in suspended animation) may call for greater leniency in some cases, but that leniency does not apply where parties are in close proximity and had means of knowledge. On the facts, the parties were neighbours and co-sharers; the dates of death of the respondents were therefore likely known to the appellants. The appellants' plea of being informed belatedly by their counsel was unsupported by written evidence and, without more, did not amount to sufficient cause to excuse the very large delay. The Court held that Rule 10A (pleader's duty to inform the court) does not relieve the appellant of the obligation to apply within the prescribed period, nor does it by itself create a consequence that mandates condonation. Applying these legal principles to the material facts, the High Court's conclusion that no sufficient cause was shown and that the appeal had abated was justified. [Paras 6, 11, 13, 14]High Court rightly refused to condone the delay in bringing the heirs on record; the second appeal stood abated and the appeal is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to condone the extensive delay in impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondents was upheld; no sufficient cause having been shown, the second appeal abated and this Court dismissed the appeal. Issues Involved:1. Effect of abatement of an appeal under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Delay in bringing on record the legal heirs and representatives of deceased respondents.3. Application of Order 22 Rule 10A regarding the duty of counsel to inform the court about the death of a party.4. Consideration of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.Detailed Analysis:1. Effect of Abatement of an Appeal:The main issue revolves around the effect of abatement of an appeal as per Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court examined the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which dismissed the appellant's application to condone the delay in bringing on record the legal heirs and representatives of two deceased respondents. The High Court held that the second appeal abated since the cause of action was indivisible.2. Delay in Bringing on Record Legal Heirs:The appellants delayed filing the application for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondents by 2381 and 2601 days, respectively. The appellants argued that they were unaware of the deaths until informed by their counsel much later. However, the High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the abatement of the appeal.3. Application of Order 22 Rule 10A:The appellants contended that the counsel for the deceased respondents did not inform the court about their clients' deaths as mandated by Order 22 Rule 10A. The Supreme Court noted that while Order 22 Rule 10A requires the counsel to inform the court, it does not eliminate the appellant's duty to file an application for substitution within the prescribed period.4. Consideration of Sufficient Cause for Condonation of Delay:The Supreme Court reiterated that applications for condonation of delay should be considered liberally, especially in appeals. However, it emphasized that ignorance of legal consequences alone is insufficient for condoning a substantial delay. The Court referred to several precedents, including *Union of India v. Ram Charan* and *Bhag Singh v. Major Daljit Singh*, which highlighted that the appellant must prove sufficient cause for the delay.The Supreme Court observed that the appellants, being neighbors and co-sharers with the respondents, were likely aware of the deaths. The Court found it implausible that the appellants did not contact their lawyers for several years. The Court also noted that the appellants failed to provide evidence of the alleged intimation from their counsel regarding the deaths.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased respondents. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely action in legal proceedings and the necessity of providing substantial reasons for any delay.