1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the trial court’s refusal to condone a delay of over two years in filing an application for substitution of legal representatives after the death of the sole plaintiff. The Court upheld the finding that the appellants’ explanation was vague, unsupported by any material, and contradicted by the conduct of the case record.
Reaffirming the settled principle that “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be proved through convincing explanation—not broad assertions—the Court held that the appellants were unable to justify the delay or show diligence. The Court also held that the appellants had no statutory right to prosecute the underlying claim for compensation, as they were not dependents under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s order, the appeal was dismissed.
2. Facts
The original suit was filed in 2013 by an elderly father seeking compensation for the deaths of his son, daughter-in-law, and two minor grandchildren, alleged to have died due to a gas leakage incident following the delivery of an LPG cylinder. The suit sought damages from the gas distributor and associated parties.
On 19 November 2016, the sole plaintiff passed away, leaving behind two children—his son and daughter—who are the present appellants. No application for substitution under Order XXII CPC was filed within the prescribed time.
On 25 April 2019, more than two years later, the trial court recorded abatement of the suit due to non-substitution.
On 20 July 2019, the appellants filed (i) an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 2-year delay, and (ii) an application under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 CPC seeking substitution and setting aside of abatement.
The trial court dismissed both applications, leading to the present appeal.
3. Issues
The High Court considered three core issues:
- Whether the appellants had shown “sufficient cause” for condonation of a delay exceeding two years.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to set aside abatement when the explanation offered was uncorroborated.
- Whether the appellants, as non-dependents, had the legal right to continue the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The appellants argued that the deceased plaintiff, aged over 90, had lost memory shortly before his death and was living separately from them. Due to cognitive decline, he was unable to inform them of the pending litigation. They claimed they learnt of the suit only when a “close friend” of the deceased told them on 25 April 2019.
They contended that the delay was not deliberate but occurred due to circumstances beyond their control, and that courts should adopt a justice-oriented approach while interpreting “sufficient cause.”
They argued that the trial court adopted an overly technical view and ignored the substantive merits of the claim, emphasizing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the delay were condoned.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The respondents supported the trial court’s findings and argued that the appellants’ explanation was implausible and wholly unsupported. They emphasized:
• No medical proof of memory loss was produced.
• The identity or details of the “friend” who informed the appellants were withheld.
• The counsel for the deceased plaintiff continued to appear and conduct trial for over two years after his death, showing that the case was being actively pursued.
• The appellants lived in close proximity to the deceased, making “total ignorance” unlikely.
Respondents further argued that under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, only the wife, husband, parents, and children of the deceased whose death is the cause of action can sue. The appellants were neither dependents nor beneficiaries regarding the four deceased family members, and therefore had no statutory right to continue the suit, even apart from the delay.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court conducted a detailed examination of the law governing delay condonation and substitution after abatement:
Sufficient cause requirement
Courts are expected to adopt a liberal approach, but only when:
• explanations are bona fide,
• delay is not due to negligence, and
• material supports the stated reasons.
Mere assertions without evidence cannot justify condonation.
Impact of continuing representation by counsel
The fact that the deceased plaintiff’s advocate continued participating in trial for two years after the plaintiff’s death strongly contradicted the appellants’ account. This undermined the credibility of their explanation and indicated clear negligence.
Automatic abatement and mandatory sequence
Once the statutory period lapses, abatement occurs automatically. The court can revive proceedings only if:
- delay is first condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and
- abatement is then set aside under Order XXII Rule 9.
Fatal Accidents Act entitlement
Most significantly, the Court held that even if delay were condoned, the appellants had no statutory right to prosecute the claim. The compensation suit was based on the Fatal Accidents Act, where only dependents specified under Section 1A qualify as claimants. Adult siblings of the deceased victims—who were not dependents—are not entitled to claim compensation.
Thus, condoning the delay would be futile.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court relied on several established legal principles:
Sufficient cause doctrine — Courts cannot condone delay when explanations are vague, unsupported, contradictory, or reflect negligence. Applied strictly to the appellants’ conduct.
Automatic abatement — Once limitation expires, revival requires threshold satisfaction of “sufficient cause.”
Fatal Accidents Act jurisprudence — Only enumerated relatives who were dependents can maintain a claim; others have no cause of action.
The judgment reinforces existing doctrines rather than introducing new precedent.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found multiple deficiencies:
1. No material supporting memory-loss claim
The claim of cognitive impairment was unsupported by even a single medical document.
2. Vague story of “friend informing about the suit”
The appellants failed to disclose the friend’s identity or produce any corroboration.
3. Contradictory conduct in the trial court
The plaintiff’s counsel continued to appear, file documents and conduct trial. This was irreconcilable with the claim that nobody knew of the case.
4. Proximity of residence
The appellants lived in the same block or nearby, weakening the plea of ignorance.
5. No statutory entitlement
Even if the delay was condoned, the appellants had no legal right to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, making revival of the suit pointless.
On all these grounds, the Court upheld the trial court’s refusal to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
9. Conclusion
The High Court held that the appellants failed to establish “sufficient cause” for condoning the long delay, failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims, and were not statutorily entitled to prosecute the compensation suit.
The appeal was dismissed.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces that:
• Condonation of delay is not automatic; it requires credible, corroborated explanation.
• Courts will not revive abated proceedings when the applicants are negligent or lacking bona fides.
• Parties must show diligence; family members cannot claim ignorance of long-running litigation when counsel actively participates.
• Under the Fatal Accidents Act, only eligible dependents may prosecute a claim—others cannot step in after the plaintiff’s death.
The judgment strengthens procedural discipline and clarifies the strict contours of substitution rights in fatal-accident-based litigation.
Case Law References
(Summarised based on principles applied; the judgment does not cite specific case names)
Delay Condonation Precedents — Courts require bona fide, supported explanations; negligence and vague assertions are insufficient. Applied fully.
Order XXII & Abatement — Abatement is automatic; revival requires prior condonation of delay.
Fatal Accidents Act Principles — Only dependents enumerated in Section 1A may sue; adult siblings cannot continue the claim.
FAQs
1. Can a court condone a delay of over two years for substitution of legal heirs?
Yes, but only if “sufficient cause” is proved through credible evidence. Vague, unsupported explanations will be rejected.
2. Who can file or continue a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
Only dependents such as parents, spouse, or children of the deceased. Other relatives cannot maintain the claim.
3. Does a civil suit abate automatically upon death if LRs are not substituted in time?
Yes. Abatement is automatic. Revival is possible only if delay is first condoned and abatement is then set aside.