Suit for specific performance not abated; Order XXII CPC abatement order procedural, Letters Patent appeal held untenable

SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC Division Bench judgment and restored the order of the Single Judge permitting substitution of the deceased plaintiff's legal representatives and condoning the delay, holding that sufficient cause had been rightly found. It ruled that the suit for specific performance had not abated as a whole and must proceed on merits. SC further held that an order setting aside abatement is purely procedural, does not determine valuable rights or issues of moment, and therefore is not a "judgment" under the Letters Patent, rendering the Letters Patent Appeal before the HC not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of suit due to the death of one of the plaintiffs.
2. Condonation of delay in bringing legal representatives on record.
3. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the order setting aside abatement was maintainable.
4. Interpretation of what constitutes a 'judgment' under Letters Patent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Abatement of Suit Due to the Death of One of the Plaintiffs:
The suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was filed by three plaintiffs. Upon the death of one plaintiff, Bharat Singh, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff sought to be brought on record. The defendants contended that the suit had abated in its entirety due to the death of one plaintiff and the failure of the surviving plaintiffs to seek setting aside of the abatement. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the suit continued to remain abated as against the surviving plaintiffs, thus dismissing the suit entirely.

2. Condonation of Delay in Bringing Legal Representatives on Record:
The Learned Single Judge allowed the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to be brought on record, condoning the delay in moving the application and setting aside the abatement. The Division Bench, however, reversed this decision, stating that the suit had abated in its entirety due to the lack of a specific prayer from the surviving plaintiffs for setting aside the abatement. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge's finding of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay was reasonable and should not have been interfered with by the Division Bench.

3. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal Against the Order Setting Aside Abatement Was Maintainable:
The Division Bench overruled an objection to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, treating the order setting aside abatement as a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that an order setting aside abatement does not affect the merits of the case or determine any valuable rights, and thus does not constitute a 'judgment'. The appeal against such an order was not maintainable.

4. Interpretation of What Constitutes a 'Judgment' Under Letters Patent:
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Shah Babu Lal Khimji v. Behan D. Kangro, AIR (1981) SC 1786, which held that only those orders that affect valuable rights or decide matters of moment can be considered 'judgments'. The Court also cited decisions from the Calcutta, Punjab, and Bombay High Courts, which held that an order setting aside abatement does not amount to a 'judgment'. The Supreme Court agreed with these views, emphasizing that such orders are procedural and do not affect the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restoring the order of the Learned Single Judge. The Court emphasized a justice-oriented approach, stating that technicalities should not prevent a litigant from having their case heard on merits. The decision underscores the principle that procedural orders, such as setting aside abatement, should not be treated as 'judgments' under Letters Patent, thus not warranting an appeal.

---