2009 (4) TMI 904 - SC - Indian Laws

Failure to Timely Bring Legal Heirs Leads to Dismissal

KATARI SURYANARAYANA & ORS. Versus KOPPISETTI SUBBA RAO & ORS.

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 ... Whether the High Court committed a grave error insofar it failed to take into consideration the fact that the appellants were not aware of the consequences of the death of the respondents and they had come to know thereabout only through the counsel at a much later state? Whether the provision of Order 22 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure mandating the counsel of the deceased to duly inform the Court in regard to their clients passing away having not been complied with? 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.