Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom … vs Bhargavi Amma (D) Thr. Lrs on 11 July, 2008

                                                                             Reportable
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4440 OF 2008
                 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.6111 of 2006]


Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom,
Perinadu Village                                           ... Appellant (s)

Vs.

Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs & Ors.                         ... Respondents




                                 ORDER

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is by the appellant in Second Appeal No.147 of 1993 on

the file of the High Court of Kerala. During the pendency of the said appeal,

the second respondent before the High Court, died on 17.4.2002. In that

behalf, the appellant filed the following three applications on 9.10.2003 : (i)

an application to set aside the abatement of the appeal against second

respondent in the second appeal; (ii) an application to condone the delay in
2

filing the said application to set aside the abatement; and (iii) an application

to bring on record, the LRs of the deceased second respondent in the second

appeal. The High Court, being of the view that the delay of 394 days was

not satisfactorily explained, dismissed the application for condonation of

delay as also the application for setting aside the abatement and

consequently, dismissed the application for bringing the LRs on record, by

three separate orders dated 5.10.2005. As the deceased second respondent in

the second appeal was the sole plaintiff in the original suit from which the

second appeal arose, the second appeal was closed on 5.10.2005, as having

abated. The said four orders are challenged in this appeal by special leave.

3. The appellant contends that there was no negligence or laches on its

part and it had satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay which were

due to circumstances beyond its control. The appellant, a Devoswom

managed by a Committee, gave the following explanation for the delay:

When the second appeal was filed in 1993, it was managed by an earlier

Managing Committee. Later in a suit relating to the management of the

Devoswom, the Sub-Court, Kollam appointed a Receiver to manage the

Devoswom. Thereafter elections were held on 25.5.2003 and the newly

elected Committee of Management assumed office on 8.6.2003. The new
3

Committee of Management was unaware of the pendency of the

second appeal and, therefore, not in a position to file necessary

applications in time. The Committee came to know about the appeal only

when it received a communication dated 7.9.2003 from the lawyer about the

case. Thereafter it ascertained the particulars of the LRs. of the deceased

and filed the applications on 9.10.2003.

4. The question that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the

High Court ought to have condoned the delay and set aside the abatement.

To consider this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions

of order 22 CPC and their scope.

4.1) Order 22 Rule 11 CPC provides that in the application of Order 22 to

appeals, as far as may be the words `plaintiff’, `defendant’ and `suit’ shall

respectively include an appellant, a respondent and an appeal. Rule 1 of

Order 22 provides that the death of a respondent shall not cause the appeal

to abate if the right to sue survives.

4.2) Rule 4 of Order 22 prescribes the procedure in case of death of a

respondent. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 provides that where a respondent dies
4

and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving respondents alone

or where the sole respondent dies and the right to sue survives, the court on

an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the

deceased respondent to be made a party to the appeal and shall proceed with

the appeal. Sub-rule (3) provides that where no application is made to cause

the legal representative of the deceased respondent to be made party, the

appeal shall abate as against the deceased respondent. (The word `abate’ in

the context of Order 22 CPC means termination of the suit or appeal on

account of the death of a party materially interested).

4.3) Under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of

limitation to have the legal representative of a deceased respondent made a

party to an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, is 90 days from the

date of death of the respondent. Article 121 provides that for an application

under the Code of Civil Procedure for an order to set aside abatement, the

period of limitation is 60 days from the date of abatement. Section 5 of the

Limitation Act provides that any application may be admitted after the

prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient

cause for not making the application within such period.
5

4.4) Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of Order 22 now gives a clear indication as to

what will be sufficient cause. It provides that where the appellant was

ignorant of the death of a respondent, and for that reason could not make an

application for the substitution of the legal representative of the deceased

respondent under Rule 4 within the time specified in the Limitation Act,

1963, and in consequence, the appeal has abated, and the appellant applies

after the expiry of the period specified in the Limitation Act for setting aside

the abatement and also for the admission of that application under section 5

of the Limitation Act, on the ground that he had by reason of such

ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period

specified in the Limitation Act, the court shall, in considering the

application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, have due regard to the

fact of such ignorance, if proved.

4.5) Rule 10A of Order 22 provides that whenever a pleader appearing for

a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform

the court about it, and the court shall thereupon give notice of such death to

the other party.

6

5. Having regard to the wording of Rule 4, it is clear that when a

respondent dies and an application to bring his legal representative on

record is not made, abatement takes place on the expiry of the prescribed

period of 90 days, by operation of law. Abatement is not dependant upon

any judicial adjudication or declaration of such abatement by a judicial

order. It occurs by operation of law. But nevertheless `abatement’ requires

judicial cognizance to put an end to a case as having abated. To borrow a

phrase from Administrative Law (used with reference to void orders), an

appeal bears no brand on its forehead that it has `abated’, nor does it close

itself automatically on abatement. At some stage, the court has to take note

of the abatement and record the closure of the case as having abated (where

deceased was a sole respondent) or record that the appeal had abated as

against a particular respondent (if there are more than one and the cause of

action survives against the others).

6. What should be the approach of courts while considering applications

under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, has been indicated in several

decisions. It may be sufficient to refer to two of them. In Shakuntala Devi

Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court reiterated the

following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13

Mad 269] :

7

“… Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction
is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought
to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words
`sufficient cause’ receiving a liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides
is imputable to the appellant.”

In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court

held:

“It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the
court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can
be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is
no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.
Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want
of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very
long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory.
Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of
positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not
disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the
exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or
perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone
the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the
cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to
come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower
court.

The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties and to advance substantial justice…… Rules of limitation are not
meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties
do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.

A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a
suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in
approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the
words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should
receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse
on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down
his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not
8

smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the
court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is
reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party
deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of
the explanation.”

[Emphasis supplied]

7. This Court has also considered the scope of Rules 4 and 9 of Order

22 in several decisions. We will refer to them. In Union of India vs. Ram

Charan (Deceased) by LRs. [AIR 1964 SC 215], this Court observed thus :

“The provisions of the Code are with a view to advance the cause of
justice. Of course, the Court, in considering whether the appellant has
established sufficient cause for his not continuing the suit in time or for
not applying for the setting aside of the abatement within time, need not be
over-strict in expecting such proof of the suggested cause as it would
accept for holding certain fact established, both because the question does
not relate to the merits of the dispute between the parties and because if
the abatement is set aside, the merits of the dispute can be determined
while, if the abatement is not set aside, the appellant is deprived of his
proving his claim on account of his culpable negligence or lack of
vigilance.

It is true that it is no duty of the appellant to make regular enquiries from
time to time about the health or existing of the respondent.”

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court also made some observations in Ram Charan (Supra) about the

need to explain, in addition to alleging that the plaintiff/appellant not being

aware about the death, the reasons for not knowing about the death within a

reasonable time. Those observations have stood diluted in view of

subsequent insertion of sub-rule (5) in Rule 4 and addition of Rule 10A in
9

Order 22 CPC by Amendment Act 104 of 1976, requiring (i) the court to

take note of the ignorance of death as sufficient cause for condonation of

delay, (ii) the counsel for the deceased party to inform the court about the

death of his client.

In Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao [2002 (3) SCC 195] this Court

observed thus :

“12. Thus it becomes plain that the expression “sufficient cause” within
the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any
other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona
fides is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation
furnished would constitute “sufficient cause” or not will be dependent
upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for
accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking
steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the
tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a
slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of
explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more
so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to
the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the
courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the
time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which
should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like
manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the
matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are
high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case,
causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the
lis terminates, either by default or inaction and defeating valuable right of
such a party to have the decision on merit. While considering the matter,
courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is
going to pass upon the parties either way.”

[Emphasis supplied]
10

In Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Ors. [1985 (1)

SCC 163], this Court stated :

“…once an appeal is pending in the High Court, the heirs are not expected
to keep a constant watch on the continued existence of parties to the
appeal before the High Court which has a seat far away from where parties
in rural areas may be residing. And in a traditional rural family the father
may not have informed his son about the litigation in which he was
involved and was a party. Let it be recalled what has been said umpteen
times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be
so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring
parties.”

In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. S. S. Akolkar – 1996 (2) SCC 568, this

Court held :

“Under Order 22 Rule 10A, it is the duty of the counsel, on coming to
know of the death of a party, to inform it to the Court and the Court shall
give notice to the other party of the death. By necessary implication delay
for substitution of legal representatives begins to run from the date of
knowledge.

It is settled law that the consideration for condonation of delay Under
Section 5 of Limitation Act and setting aside of the abatement under Order
22 are entirely distinct and different. The Court always liberally considers
the latter, though in some cases, the Court may refuse to condone the delay
Under Section 5 in filing the appeals. After the appeal has been filed and is
pending, Government is not expected to keep watch whether the
contesting respondent is alive or passed away. After the matter was
brought to the notice of the counsel for the State, steps were taken even
thereafter after due verification belated application came to be filed. It is
true that Section 5 of Limitation Act would be applicable and delay is
required to be explained. The delay in official business requires its broach
and approach from public justice perspective.”

8. The principles applicable in considering applications for setting aside

abatement may thus be summarized as follows :

11

(i) The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the
period of limitation” should be understood and applied in a reasonable,
pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words `sufficient
cause’ in section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not
on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate inaction
or negligence on the part of the appellant.

(ii) In considering the reasons for condonation of delay, the courts are more
liberal with reference to applications for setting aside abatement, than
other cases. While the court will have to keep in view that a valuable
right accrues to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent
when the appeal abates, it will not punish an appellant with foreclosure
of the appeal, for unintended lapses. The courts tend to set aside
abatement and decide the matter on merits, rather than terminate the
appeal on the ground of abatement.

(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay,
but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.

(iv) The extent or degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the
nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For
example, courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal
more leniently than delays in the institution of an appeal. The courts
view applications relating to lawyer’s lapses more leniently than
applications relating to litigant’s lapses. The classic example is the
difference in approach of courts to applications for condonation of delay
in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in refiling
the appeal after rectification of defects.

(v) Want of `diligence’ or `inaction’ can be attributed to an appellant only
when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing
is required to be done, courts do not expect the appellant to be diligent.
Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be
listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to
visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position
nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely
awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the
appeal.

12

9. Let us next also refer to some of the special factors which have a

bearing on what constitutes sufficient cause, with reference to delay in

applications for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal

representatives on record.

10. The first is whether the appeal is pending in a court where regular and

periodical dates of hearing are fixed. There is a significant difference

between an appeal pending in a sub-ordinate court and an appeal pending in

a High Court. In lower courts, dates of hearing are periodically fixed and a

party or his counsel is expected to appear on those dates and keep track of

the case. The process is known as `adjournment of hearing’. In fact, this

Court in Ram Charan (supra) inferred that the limitation period for bringing

the legal representative might have been fixed as 90 days keeping in mind

the adjournment procedure :

“The legislature might have expected that ordinarily the interval
between two successive hearings of a suit will be much within three
months and the absence of any defendant within that period at a certain
hearing may be accounted by his counsel or some relation to be due to his
death or may make the plaintiff inquisitive about the reasons for the other
party’s absence.”

13

In contrast, when an appeal is pending in a High Court, dates of hearing are

not fixed periodically. Once the appeal is admitted, it virtually goes into

storage and is listed before the court only when it is ripe for hearing or when

some application seeking an interim direction is filed. It is common for

appeals pending in High Courts not to be listed at all for several years. (In

some courts where there is a huge pendency, the non-hearing period may be

as much as 10 years or even more). When the appeal is admitted by the High

Court, the counsel inform the parties that they will get in touch as and when

the case is listed for hearing. There is nothing the appellant is required to do

during the period between admission of the appeal and listing of the appeal

for arguments (except filing paper books or depositing the charges for

preparation of paper books wherever necessary). The High Courts are

overloaded with appeals and the litigant is in no way responsible for non-

listing for several years. There is no need for the appellant to keep track

whether the respondent is dead or alive by periodical enquiries during the

long period between admission and listing for hearing. When an appeal is so

kept pending in suspended animation for a large number of years in the

High Court without any date being fixed for hearing, there is no likelihood

of the appellant becoming aware of the death of the respondent, unless both
14

lived in the immediate vicinity or were related or the court issues a notice to

him informing the death of the respondent.

11. The second circumstance is whether the counsel for the deceased

respondent or the legal representative of the deceased respondent notified

the court about the death and whether the court gave notice of such death to

the appellant. Rule 10A of Order 22 casts a duty on the counsel for the

respondent to inform the court about the death of such respondent whenever

he comes to know about it. When the death is reported and recorded in the

ordersheet/proceedings and the appellant is notified, the appellant has

knowledge of the death and there is a duty on the part of the appellant to

take steps to bring the legal representative of the deceased on record, in

place of the deceased. The need for diligence commences from the date of

such knowledge. If the appellant pleads ignorance even after the court

notifies him about the death of the respondent that may be indication of

negligence or want of diligence.

12. The third circumstance is whether there is any material to contradict

the claim of the appellant, if he categorically states that he was unaware of
15

the death of the respondent. In the absence of any material, the court would

accept his claim that he was not aware of the death.

13. Thus it can safely be concluded that if the following three conditions

exist, the courts will usually condone the delay, and set aside the abatement

(even though the period of delay is considerable and a valuable right might

have accrued to the opposite party – LRs of the deceased – on account of the

abatement) :

(i) The respondent had died during the period when the appeal had
been pending without any hearing dates being fixed;

(ii) Neither the counsel for the deceased respondent nor the Legal
Representatives of the deceased respondent had reported the
death of the respondent to the court and the court has not given
notice of such death to the appellant.

(iii) The appellant avers that he was unaware of the death of the
respondent and there is no material to doubt or contradict his
claim.

14. If, as in this case, the appeal was admitted in 1993 and did not come

up for hearing till 2005, and the respondent died in-between, the court

should not punish the appellant for his ignorance of the death of respondent,

by refusing to set aside the abatement. Lack of diligence or negligence can

be attributed to an appellant only when he is aware of the death and fails to
16

take steps to bring the legal representatives on record. Where the appellant

being unaware of the death of respondent, does not take steps to bring the

legal representatives on record, there can be no question of any want of

diligence or negligence.

15. In this case, the appeal was not being listed periodically by the High

Court. Neither the counsel for the deceased second respondent in the High

Court, nor the legal representatives of the deceased respondent reported her

death to the High Court. There was no notice of death to the appellant. The

appellant is an institution which acts through its Managing Committee.

During the relevant period, there was transition of management from a

Court Receiver to an elected managing committee. An affidavit was filed on

behalf of the appellant that its new Committee was unaware of the

pendency of the appeal. Being unaware of the pendency of appeal is

equivalent to being unaware of the death of a respondent. This may happen

in two circumstances. First is where the appellant himself is dead and his

LRs have newly come on record. Second is where the appellant is an

institution or company and a new Committee or Board of Management takes

over its management. In such an event, even if they knew about the death of

a person, they may not know the significance or relevance of death of such a
17

person with reference to a pending appeal if they do not know about the

appeal. As the appeal had already been admitted in 1993, and as hearing

dates were not fixed periodically, the new Committee had no way of

knowing that the appeal was pending, that Bhargavi Amma was a party to

the appeal and that the Legal Representatives of the deceased Bhargavi

Amma (second respondent before the High Court) had not been brought on

record. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the delay was

satisfactorily explained. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay,

set aside the abatement and permitted the appellant to bring the legal

representatives of the deceased respondent on record.

16. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the orders dated

5.10.2005 of the High Court dismissing the three applications and the

consequential order dated 5.10.2005 closing the appeal as having abated.

The delay is condoned. Abatement is set aside. The legal representatives of

the deceased second respondent in the second appeal are permitted to be

brought on record. The cause-title of the memorandum of second appeal

before the High Court shall be amended. The High Court will now proceed

to hear the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Parties to bear their

respective costs.

18

………………………..J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

…………………………..J.

(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)
New Delhi;

July 11, 2008.