Court’s Decision
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the trial court’s orders allowing substitution of the deceased defendant’s legal representative and rejecting the petitioner’s application for dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was filed against a dead person, holding that the substitution, though incorrectly filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, could be treated under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the interest of justice as the plaintiff’s ignorance of the defendant’s death was bona fide and in good faith.
Facts
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell on 15 September 2020. Summons to the sole defendant returned unserved with the remark that the defendant had died on 25 August 2020, prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order 22 Rule 2 & 4 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC seeking substitution of the deceased defendant’s legal representative (petitioner). Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear, and the trial court allowed the substitution on 18 November 2021, directing necessary amendments and issuance of summons to the substituted defendant. The petitioner then appeared and filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit, arguing that the suit filed against a dead person was non-maintainable. The trial court rejected this application, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petitions.
Issues
- Whether a suit filed against a deceased person is maintainable and whether substitution of legal representatives can be allowed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of the defendant’s death prior to the institution of the suit.
- Whether a procedural error in the provision invoked can be cured to advance justice where a bona fide mistake in impleadment is shown.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued:
- The suit was non-maintainable as it was filed against a dead person, and substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was impermissible since the defendant had died prior to the filing of the suit.
- The trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking dismissal of the suit on this ground.
- Reliance on Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was misplaced, and the trial court’s order permitting substitution was without jurisdiction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued:
- The plaintiff was unaware of the defendant’s death at the time of filing the suit and upon learning of the death, promptly moved for substitution of the legal representative.
- The agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner as the deceased’s power of attorney holder; hence the petitioner was a necessary party.
- The substitution application, though incorrectly filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, could be treated under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to advance justice.
- Denial of substitution would defeat the substantive rights of the plaintiff due to a bona fide mistake.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (2017) 9 SCC 700 – held that courts should treat applications under Order 22 Rule 4 as under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to advance justice where a defendant dies prior to the suit and the plaintiff was unaware of the death.
- Karuppaswamy v. C. Ramamurthy (1993) 4 SCC 41 – held that where a plaintiff is unaware of the defendant’s death and has acted in good faith, substitution can be permitted with the suit relating back to the original date.
- Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) SCC 181 – reiterated that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be exercised to interfere with orders unless there is grave injustice, perversity, or lack of jurisdiction.
Precedent Analysis
- Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya (2017) – Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach to substitution to advance justice, treating procedural errors liberally where good faith is established.
- Karuppaswamy (1993) – Good faith mistakes allow substitution under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with limitation protection under Section 21(1) Limitation Act.
- Garment Craft (2022) – Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty, not substituting factual findings.
These precedents guided the Court to uphold the trial court’s pragmatic approach in allowing substitution to advance justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- The plaintiff had demonstrated bona fide ignorance of the defendant’s death at the time of filing the suit, and the substitution application, though filed under the wrong provision, could be treated as under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
- The trial court’s inference that the plaintiff’s mistake was bona fide and in good faith was justified, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew of the death earlier.
- Under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority and should not interfere unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or lack of jurisdiction, which was absent here.
- Denial of substitution would result in miscarriage of justice, defeating the plaintiff’s substantive claim on a mere technicality.
Conclusion
- The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the trial court’s orders allowing substitution and rejecting the dismissal application.
- Held that the substitution, though filed under an incorrect provision, was valid under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the interest of justice.
- Clarified that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights where the party acted in good faith.
Implications
- Reinforces that courts should prioritise justice over technicalities where mistakes are bona fide.
- Clarifies that substitution of legal representatives can be permitted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC even if initially sought under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, where the defendant died prior to suit filing.
- Limits the scope of Article 227 intervention to cases of grave injustice or jurisdictional error, preserving the autonomy of lower courts in factual determinations.
Short Note on Referred Cases
- Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya (2017) – Allowed substitution under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for advancing justice despite procedural mistakes.
- Karuppaswamy (1993) – Recognised good faith mistakes and allowed substitution with limitation protection.
- Garment Craft (2022) – Limited Article 227 interference to grave injustices or jurisdictional errors.
These cases collectively underscored the principle that justice prevails over procedural lapses.
FAQs
- Can legal representatives be substituted if the defendant died before filing the suit?
Yes, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, courts may permit substitution if the plaintiff was unaware of the death and acted in good faith.
- Does a wrong provision bar substitution in civil suits?
No, courts can treat applications filed under the wrong provision as correct if justice so demands, ensuring technicalities do not defeat substantive rights.
- What did the Uttarakhand High Court decide in this substitution challenge?
The Court upheld the substitution of legal representatives, dismissing the challenge, and clarified that technical errors cannot defeat substantive justice.
