The Supreme Court clarified that a separate request to overturn abatement is unnecessary if an application for substituting legal heirs under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is filed.
The ruling arose from a case where a High Court had invalidated the restoration of a second appeal, citing the absence of a specific application to set aside abatement. The High Court refused to consider submissions by the deceased party’s legal representatives, who had filed the necessary details for substitution.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra overturned the High Court’s stance, emphasizing a justice-oriented interpretation of procedural rules. The court observed that when a substitution application is made, the implicit intent to set aside abatement can be read into the request in the interest of fairness.
Drawing on precedent from Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003), the court reinforced that a substitution request inherently addresses the abatement issue. “A prayer for substitution, even without explicitly asking for abatement to be set aside, can achieve the same outcome by implication,” the judgment noted.
The bench highlighted the necessity of prioritizing substantive justice over rigid procedural requirements. It held that allowing the substitution of legal representatives effectively reverses abatement, serving the ends of justice.
With this perspective, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the appeal.