The Supreme Court has ruled that if an appeal abates due to the failure to substitute legal heirs, filing a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC inherently includes a prayer to set aside the abatement. Therefore, a separate application is not required.

The Supreme Court stated:

“When an application praying for substitution had been made, then, even assuming that it does not have an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement, such prayer could be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice.”

The ruling came from a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra, which heard the case where the High Court had previously dismissed a second appeal due to abatement.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa v. Satish Chandra & Others, where a second appeal was dismissed as abated by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad because an application for setting aside the abatement was not explicitly filed.

Read Also:- Supreme Court’s Rules: Alimony & Maintenance Allowed Even in Void Marriages 

Events Leading to the Supreme Court’s Decision

• Satish Chandra, the original respondent, passed away on December 2, 1996, during the second appeal. His legal heirs promptly moved an application for substitution.
• Om Prakash Gupta, the appellant, later passed away on December 8, 2001.
• The High Court failed to take note of the pending substitution application filed by the legal heirs of Satish Chandra and dismissed the second appeal due to abatement.
• The heirs of Om Prakash filed applications in 2018 to recall the abatement order, along with a delay condonation plea.
• The High Court first restored the second appeal but later recalled the order, insisting that a separate application to set aside the abatement was necessary.
• The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a substitution application inherently includes a request to set aside abatement, making a separate application unnecessary.

The Supreme Court referred to Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691, where it was held:

“A simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement.”

This ruling reinforced that substitution automatically sets aside abatement, provided the application is filed within the prescribed time.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Condemns Misogynistic Language in Judgments: Women's Dignity Must Be Upheld

Rule 4 of Order XXII CPC does not specify who must file a substitution application—whether the plaintiff, defendant, or their legal heirs.

The court clarified that once a substitution application is filed, the legal representatives are effectively brought on record, thus fulfilling the procedural requirement to set aside abatement.

The court emphasized a justice-oriented approach, highlighting that technicalities should not obstruct substantive justice.

Final Supreme Court Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the abatement of the second appeal.

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the second appeal as abated was deemed erroneous.

The second appeal was restored, and the legal heirs of both Satish Chandra and Om Prakash Gupta were directed to be substituted.

The Supreme Court also urged the High Court to expedite the pending appeal within six months, considering the long delay in the case.

Read Also:- Workplace Reprimand for Official Duties Not a Criminal Offense Under IPC Section 504: Supreme Court

Substitution application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC is enough to set aside abatement.

No separate application for setting aside abatement is necessary.

The Court must take a justice-oriented approach rather than a rigid procedural view.

Prior Supreme Court rulings confirm this interpretation.

Case Details: OM PRAKASH GUPTA ALIAS LALLOOWA (NOW DECEASED) & ORS. VERSUS SATISH CHANDRA (NOW DECEASED) & Connected Matter