Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXII Rules 3 & 9 Abatement of appeal — Death of sole appellant Where the sole appellant dies and no application for substitution of legal representatives is filed within the prescribed period, the appeal abates automatically by operation of law — Setting aside abatement requires strict compliance with Order XXII Rule 9 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Paras 2, 7, 17–18]

advocatemmmohan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXII Rules 3 & 9

Abatement of appeal — Death of sole appellant

Where the sole appellant dies and no application for substitution of legal representatives is filed within the prescribed period, the appeal abates automatically by operation of law — Setting aside abatement requires strict compliance with Order XXII Rule 9 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
[Paras 2, 7, 17–18]

---

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5

Condonation of delay — “Sufficient cause” — Strict scrutiny

Burden lies on the applicant to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay — Vague, inconsistent or false explanations, negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot constitute sufficient cause.
[Paras 4–6, 13, 17]

---

Abatement — Accrued rights of opposite party

Once appeal abates, a valuable right accrues in favour of the respondents — Such right cannot be lightly taken away unless delay is satisfactorily and bona fide explained.
[Paras 7, 13, 16]

---

Liberal approach — Limits

Though courts may adopt a liberal approach in applications to set aside abatement, liberal construction does not mean condonation as a matter of course — Liberal approach cannot be extended to cases of deliberate inaction, negligence or want of bona fides.
[Paras 11, 13–16]

---

Pleadings — Clean hands — Contradictory averments

An applicant seeking discretionary relief must approach the Court with clean hands — Contradictory stands and incorrect statements in applications disentitle the applicant from equitable relief of condonation.
[Paras 6, 17]

---

Counsel reliance — No blanket excuse

Ignorance of pendency of appeal or failure to inform counsel of death of appellant, without plausible explanation, is not a sufficient cause — Litigant cannot absolve himself of responsibility by merely blaming counsel.
[Paras 6, 17]

---

Precedents — Distinguishing liberal condonation cases

Judgments condoning delay on peculiar facts (e.g., illiteracy or bona fide mistake) cannot be treated as precedents for condoning inordinate delay lacking bona fide explanation.
[Paras 11–12]

---

II. ANALYSIS OF LAW

A. Automatic Abatement and Statutory Scheme

The Court reiterates that abatement under Order XXII CPC is automatic on expiry of limitation for substitution. Once abatement occurs, the appeal comes to an end unless abatement is set aside in accordance with Order XXII Rule 9 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Paras 7, 13).

---

B. Meaning of “Sufficient Cause”

The judgment gives a strict and structured meaning to “sufficient cause”:

• The explanation must be true, plausible and bona fide.

• It must disclose why the applicant was prevented from acting within time.

• Mere assertions of ignorance or vague excuses are insufficient.

The Court emphasises that sufficiency is judged not by sympathy but by judicial satisfaction (Paras 4–6, 13).

---

C. Liberal Approach — Not Unfettered

While recognising that courts are generally liberal in applications to set aside abatement, the Court draws a clear boundary:

• Liberal approach is intended to prevent injustice due to unintended lapses.

• It does not apply where delay is the result of negligence, callousness or falsehood.

• Liberal construction cannot render limitation provisions redundant (Paras 13–16).

---

D. Clean Hands and Credibility of Explanation

A decisive factor in this case is the lack of bona fides:

• Applicants took inconsistent stands regarding residence and knowledge.

• One legal representative had actively participated in trial proceedings.

• No document (such as counsel’s alleged letter) was produced.

• No explanation was given for prolonged silence even after knowledge.

Such conduct, the Court holds, disentitles the applicants from discretionary relief (Paras 6, 17).

---

E. Accrued Rights and Balance of Justice

The Court balances two competing considerations:

1. Preference for adjudication on merits, and

2. Protection of accrued rights of the opposite party.

It holds that where applicants are grossly negligent and dishonest, justice to the vigilant party must prevail (Paras 7, 13, 16).

---

III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS FOUND)

• Sole appellant died on 28-11-2007 (Para 2).

• Applications for substitution and condonation filed only in April 2010, after 778 days delay (Paras 2–4).

• Explanation offered: ignorance of pendency of appeal and late intimation by counsel (Para 5).

• Court found:

  • contradictory averments regarding residence and knowledge,

  • participation of one LR in trial as witness,

  • absence of documentary support,

  • no explanation for prolonged inaction (Paras 6, 17).

---

IV. FINAL HOLDING / RESULT

• No sufficient cause made out for condonation of delay.

• Application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC dismissed.

• Appeal held to have abated and dismissed.

• No order as to costs.
  [Paras 17–18]

---

Ratio (Concise)

Though courts adopt a liberal approach in setting aside abatement, inordinate delay caused by negligence, contradictory pleadings and lack of bona fides cannot be condoned; valuable rights accrued on abatement cannot be defeated on vague or false explanations.