Kerala High Court Dismisses Review Petition, Affirms Decree Validity Despite Death of Respondent During Appeal, Noting That Formal Substitution of Legal Representatives is Unnecessary if Deceased Party Did Not Participate or Contest the Proceedings

Court’s Decision:

The Kerala High Court, comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, dismissed the review petition filed under Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners sought to recall the judgment delivered in MFA No. 9 of 2004, which was passed despite the fact that one of the respondents (Smt. Annie) had passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and her legal representatives were not impleaded. The Court found that the appeal judgment could not be recalled, concluding that the review petition filed at a belated stage was not liable to be allowed.

Facts:

The petitioners were the legal representatives of Smt. Annie, the 3rd respondent in MFA No. 9 of 2004, who had died on July 4, 2009, during the pendency of the appeal. However, her death was not recorded, and her legal representatives were not substituted in the appeal. The appeal was allowed on September 30, 2014, despite the absence of Annie’s legal representatives. The petitioners argued that the judgment passed in the appeal was a nullity because the legal representatives of the deceased respondent were not impleaded. They sought to have the judgment recalled, asserting that this error rendered the decree invalid.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether the judgment passed in MFA No. 9 of 2004, which did not account for the death of a respondent during the pendency of the appeal, could be considered a nullity, and whether the Court should review and recall the judgment in such circumstances. The review petitioners contended that the judgment was void due to non-compliance with procedural requirements related to the death of a party during the appeal process.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners argued that since the judgment was passed against a deceased person (Smt. Annie), the decree was void and could not be sustained. They cited precedent, particularly the case Gopalan K. v. V. Nandini Narayanan (2015) and N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N.C. Mohammad Ismail (1966), which establish that a decree passed against a dead person is typically null and void. They emphasized that the appeal should not have been proceeded with or decided in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased, who should have been impleaded. According to the petitioners, the failure to do so resulted in a judgment that lacked legal validity.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, opposed the petitioners’ claims. They argued that the judgment and decree in MFA No. 9 of 2004 should not be considered a nullity, even though Smt. Annie was not substituted. They pointed to the fact that Smt. Annie had received the benefits of the Will at the heart of the dispute and that the legal representatives of the deceased had been served with the notices in the past. They also contended that the provisions of Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure exempted the appellants from the need to implead the legal representatives of the deceased since the latter had not contested the appeal. They argued that this exemption applied and that the judgment was not void.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court examined the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically sub-rule (4), which allows for exemption from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of a deceased defendant if that defendant has failed to contest the suit or appeal. The Court noted that even if a party dies during the pendency of an appeal, if the deceased party had not participated or contested the proceedings earlier, the Court may proceed with the matter without formally substituting the legal representatives, provided the Court deems it fit to do so.

The Court analyzed previous rulings, including Zahirul Islam v. Mohd. Usman (2003) and T. Gnanavel v. T.S. Kanagaraj (2009), to understand the scope of sub-rule (4) of Rule 4. These judgments clarified that a decree can be passed against a deceased person who failed to contest the proceedings, as long as the Court applies the provisions of Rule 4 and grants an exemption.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on prior judgments to assess the legal position on decrees passed against deceased parties. In Gopalan K. v. V. Nandini Narayanan (2015), it was established that a decree passed against a person who was alive when the case commenced but died during the pendency of the case could still stand, provided the Court was not deprived of jurisdiction over the person involved. In contrast, if the person had died before the suit was initiated, the Court would not have jurisdiction, and the judgment would be void.

In Mohammad Sulaiman v. N.C. Mohammad Ismail (1966), the Supreme Court held that a decree could not be binding on a person who had not been impleaded as a party, although certain exceptions apply. The Court further clarified that the absence of a party in the proceedings does not automatically make the decree void in cases where the person had failed to contest.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court concluded that the failure to implead the legal representatives of Smt. Annie was not fatal to the proceedings. While it was acknowledged that the non-substitution of a deceased party could typically render a decree void, in this case, Smt. Annie had failed to contest the original suit (LA(OP) No. 12 of 1999) and had not participated in the appeal. As per Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code, the appellants could have been exempted from substituting the legal representatives, which would allow the Court to proceed with the appeal without the substitution.

The Court reasoned that the appellants did not seek this exemption formally but acknowledged that under the circumstances, this could have been a case where the exemption should have been granted. Therefore, the appeal judgment was not a nullity, and the review petition could not be allowed, as even recalling the judgment would not remedy the situation.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the review petition, concluding that the judgment in MFA No. 9 of 2004 was not a nullity despite the death of one of the respondents and the non-impleading of the legal representatives. The petitioners’ request to recall the judgment was denied, as the appeal was validly decided even in the absence of the deceased’s legal representatives.

Implications:

This decision reinforces the application of Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows exemptions in cases where a deceased defendant has not contested the proceedings. It highlights that courts have discretion in deciding whether to grant such exemptions, especially in cases where the deceased party had not actively participated in the legal proceedings. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of timely procedural steps and the Court’s ability to ensure that justice is not delayed due to technicalities.

The judgment also clarifies the legal status of decrees passed against deceased parties, setting a precedent for how such situations should be handled in future appeals and review petitions.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Quashes Arbitrary Three-Year Debarment of Contractor by DDA: “Debarment for Terminating Plumber’s Services at Commonwealth Games Village, a Frontline Worker During COVID, Declared Non-Est in Law