Introduction:

In the case titled Om Prakash Gupta alias Lallooa (now deceased) & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (now deceased) and connected matters, the Supreme Court was called upon to address the issue of whether the failure to file a separate application to set aside abatement following the death of a party to an appeal would affect the substitution of legal heirs. The issue arose when the High Court refused to restore the second appeal, which was dismissed due to the death of a party, unless a separate application for setting aside the abatement was filed. In this case, a substitution application for bringing the legal heirs on record had already been filed by the petitioners. The High Court held that without a formal application to set aside the abatement, the appeal could not be restored. This decision was challenged by the petitioners before the Supreme Court, which ultimately reversed the High Court’s ruling, adopting a more justice-oriented approach.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by senior counsel Mr. Thomas P. Joseph and Mr. Shekhar Devasa, argued that the substitution application filed for bringing the legal representatives on record implicitly sought to set aside the abatement. They contended that the absence of an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement should not be an obstacle to restoring the appeal, as the intention of the prayer was clear, and the technicalities should not override justice. The petitioners cited the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003), where it was held that a prayer for substitution could be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by senior counsel Mr Raghenth Basant and Mr Nishant Anand, defended the High Court’s decision, emphasising that a separate application for setting aside the abatement was a mandatory requirement under the law. They argued that the technical requirement could not be bypassed, and the appeal should not proceed without complying with the procedural mandate.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, took a justice-oriented approach. The Court held that even if the substitution application did not explicitly seek to set aside the abatement, such a prayer could be inferred and read into the substitution request. Referring to the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh (2003), the Court observed that a prayer for substitution inherently implied a request to set aside the abatement. The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for setting aside the abatement did not preclude the Court from considering the substitution application as a request to revive the appeal.

The Court emphasised that a prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record was effectively a prayer to restore the appeal to its original position, as it would result in the setting aside of the abatement. The judgment highlighted the need for a liberal and pragmatic approach to procedural requirements, ensuring that the ends of justice are met without being unduly hindered by technicalities.

In setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasising the principle that procedural requirements should not defeat the cause of justice, particularly when the intention of the parties is clear and there is no prejudice caused to the other side.