Roshan Lal (deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Dharam Chand & Ors. CMP(M) No. 920 of 2026 in RSA No. 530 of 2007 Reserved on 11.09.2026 22.09.2026 Present: Mr Atharv Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr Neeraj Maniktala, Advocate for respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d). Respondents No.2 to 4 already ex parte. The appellants/applicants have filed the present application for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No.1, Dharam Chand, after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement. It has been asserted that deceased respondent No. 1, Dharam Chand, had expired on 12.08.2024, leaving behind the legal representatives mentioned in para 1 of the application. The right to sue survives to the legal representatives. The matter came up for final hearing and learned counsel for the respondent disclosed the death of respondent no.1. The copy of the death certificate was obtained on 02.04.2026. The application is within time from the date of knowledge. The delay occurred because the applicants were not aware of the death of Dharam Chand and the necessity to bring on record his legal representatives. Hence, it was prayed that the present 2 application be allowed and the legal representatives be brought on record after setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay in filing the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the applicants were aware of the death of Dharam Chand, who was their real uncle, staying next door adjacent to their house. There is a delay of 1 year, 8 months and 8 days in filing the application. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and Mr Neeraj Maniktala, learned counsel for respondents No.1 (a) to 1(d). 4. Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, submitted that the applicants were not aware of the requirement of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased. The application is within limitation from the date of the disclosure of the death of respondent no.1. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents by allowing the application. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the legal representatives mentioned in the application be brought on record after setting aside the abatement and condoning the delay. He relied upon the judgment in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom vs. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) 3 by LRs and others (2008) 8 SCC 321 in support of his submission. 5. Mr Neeraj Maniktala, learned counsel for respondents No.1 (a) to 1(d), submitted that the applicants and respondent No. 1 were related to each other. They are neighbours, and the plea taken by the applicants that they were not aware of the date of death of respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. There is a delay of 1 year, 8 months and 8 days in filing the application, which has not been explained. The abatement is automatic and does not require any order from the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. He relied upon the judgment in Katari Suryanarayana and others vs. Koppisetti Subba Rao and others (2009) 11 SCC 183 in support of his submission. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwari Lal v. Balbir Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 607: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 763 that the provisions of Order XXII of CPC are not penal in nature, but are rules of procedure, which cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It was observed at page 611: 4 9. Provisions of Order 22 CPC are not penal in nature. It is a rule of procedure and substantial rights of the parties cannot be defeated by a pedantic approach by observing strict adherence to the procedural aspects of law. In Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta [(2003) 3 SCC 272], a five-Judge Bench of this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 300-01, para 26) “26. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22 CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. The fact that the khata was said to be joint is of no relevance, as long as each one of them had their own independent, distinct and separate shares in the property as found separately indicated in the jamabandi itself of the shares of each of them distinctly. We are also of the view that the High Court [Amarjit Singh v. Pramod Gupta, 1991 SCC OnLine Del 131: (1991) 20 DRJ 337] should 5 have, on the very perception it had on the question of abatement, allowed the applications for impleadment even dehors the cause for the delay in filing the applications, keeping in view the serious manner in which it would otherwise jeopardise an effective adjudication on merits, the rights of the other remaining appellants for no fault of theirs. The interests of justice would have been better served had the High Court adopted a positive and constructive approach rather than merely scuttling the whole process to foreclose an adjudication of the claims of others on merits. The rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and bringing on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be a just or reasonable exercise of the Court's power or in conformity with the avowed object of the Court to do real, effective and substantial justice.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 163], it was observed that the rules of procedure under Order 22 CPC are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties. On sufficient cause, delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on record should be condoned. Procedure is meant only to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same. The dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court does not constitute a sound and reasonable exercise of its powers and the impugned order [Banwari Lal v. Balbir Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6406] cannot be sustained. 8. In Katari Suryanarayana (supra), there was a delay of 2381 days and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 6 the delay was inordinate and could not be condoned, especially when the parties were residing in the immediate vicinity and were related to each other. The delay is not inordinate in the present case, and the factum of death was brought on record for the first time on 01.04.2026. There is force in the submission of Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, that applicants being rustic villagers cannot be expected to contact their learned counsel and immediately file an application for bringing on record the legal representatives. 9. Therefore, in view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the legal representatives mentioned in para-1 of the application are ordered to be brought on record after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement. 10. The present application stands disposed of. 11. Amended memo be taken on record. Necessary correction be made in the memo of parties. RSA No. 530 of 2007 12. List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd September, 2026 (Nikita)