Liberal construction of substitution prayers can revive abated suits, while orders setting aside abatement are not appealable judgments.

A prayer to bring legal representatives on record may be construed liberally as including a request to set aside abatement, particularly in a joint suit where the relief can enure to the entire proceeding. Abatement is governed strictly, but setting it aside is approached liberally where sufficient cause is shown, and a technical absence of an express prayer need not defeat revival of the suit. An order permitting substitution and setting aside abatement is procedural, does not determine substantive rights on the merits, and is not a judgment for Letters Patent appeal purposes; the remedy lies against refusal, not grant, of such relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff on record, even without an express prayer to set aside abatement, could be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety and revive the suit; (ii) whether an order allowing substitution of legal representatives and setting aside abatement is a "judgment" so as to make a Letters Patent appeal maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether an application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff on record, even without an express prayer to set aside abatement, could be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety and revive the suit.

Analysis: Abatement operates by law and bars adjudication on merits, so provisions relating to abatement and its setting aside must be applied strictly in one sense and liberally in the other. A prayer to bring legal representatives on record may, in substance, include a prayer to set aside abatement, and a prayer directed to one deceased plaintiff may, in the circumstances of a joint suit, enure to the benefit of the entire proceeding. The Court also emphasized that a justice-oriented approach is required and that once sufficient cause for delay is accepted, a technical insistence on a separate, express prayer for every surviving plaintiff is unwarranted. Where the defendants themselves had sought impleadment of the legal representatives in the connected appeal, the substitution could not be treated as confined narrowly to one proceeding.

Conclusion: The application was sufficient to set aside the abatement and revive the suit as a whole. The finding of sufficient cause was not open to interference.

Issue (ii): Whether an order allowing substitution of legal representatives and setting aside abatement is a "judgment" so as to make a Letters Patent appeal maintainable.

Analysis: An order setting aside abatement or permitting substitution does not decide any substantive right or liability on the merits and merely restores the suit to an actionable condition. Such an order does not affect the merits of the controversy or finally determine any vital issue between the parties. The Court accepted the line of authority holding that an order of this nature is procedural and does not amount to a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent. By contrast, an appeal lies against refusal to set aside abatement, not against an order granting that relief.

Conclusion: A Letters Patent appeal against the order setting aside abatement was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's order was set aside and the order of the trial court restoring the suit was reinstated, thereby preserving the suit for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A prayer for substitution of legal representatives may be construed liberally as including a prayer to set aside abatement, and an order allowing such substitution and setting aside abatement is procedural, not a "judgment" appealable under the Letters Patent.

---