The Supreme Court ruled that failure to comply with Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which mandates lawyers to inform the court about a party’s death, prevents the opposing side from claiming abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court emphasized that no party can benefit from their own wrong (nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria). It clarified that procedural lapses should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh consideration, highlighting the distinction between joint and indivisible decrees in abatement cases. The judgment reinforces the duty of pleaders to ensure fair litigation.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed by the appellants (Binod Pathak & others) before the Sub-Judge, Gopalganj, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over disputed lands in Village Harkhauli. The trial court dismissed the suit in 1989, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision in 2009, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants then filed a Second Appeal before the Patna High Court, which set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, holding that the appeal had abated due to the death of some defendants during proceedings and the non-substitution of their legal heirs. The High Court ruled that the decree was joint and indivisible, making the entire appeal defective.Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the defendants had suppressed the fact of death and violated Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which obligates lawyers to inform the court about a party’s death. The Supreme Court held that abatement cannot be claimed if the opposite party was kept in the dark, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice. It remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to examine whether the decree was truly joint and indivisible before deciding on abatement.
Procedural History:
The case began with Title Suit No. 106 of 1984 filed before the Sub-Judge (I), Gopalganj, where the plaintiffs sought declaration of title and recovery of possession of disputed lands. The trial court dismissed the suit in 1989. The plaintiffs then filed Title Appeal No. 60/1989 (renumbered as 58/2007) before the Additional District Judge (I), Gopalganj, which allowed the appeal in 2009, decreeing the suit in their favor.The defendants challenged this decision in a Second Appeal (No. 190 of 2008) before the Patna High Court, arguing that the First Appeal had abated due to the death of some respondents and non-substitution of their legal heirs. The High Court allowed the Second Appeal in 2014, holding that the decree was joint and indivisible, rendering the entire appeal defective.The plaintiffs then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1536 of 2015, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 7706 of 2025. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and remanding the case for fresh consideration on whether the decree was truly joint and indivisible, while emphasizing Order XXII Rule 10A CPC and the duty of pleaders to disclose a party’s death.
READ ALSO:Who Pays Entry Tax? Supreme Court Decides Liquor Warehouse vs. Manufacturer Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations in its judgment. It strongly emphasized that Order XXII Rule 10A CPC imposes a mandatory duty on advocates to inform the court about a client’s death, noting that failure to do so prevents the opposing party from taking advantage of abatement due to non-substitution of legal heirs. The Court highlighted the principle “nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” (no one should benefit from their own wrong), ruling that defendants who deliberately concealed deaths during appellate proceedings couldn’t later claim abatement.The judgment clarified the distinction between joint/indivisible decrees (where abatement affects the entire case) and severable decrees, directing the High Court to examine this aspect on remand. It criticized the High Court for ignoring substantive justice in favor of procedural technicalities and stressed that courts must prevent abuse of process where parties suppress material facts. The Court also differentiated between the legal maxims “ex injuria jus non oritur” (rights cannot stem from wrongdoing) and “nullus commodum…”, explaining their distinct applications in equity and law.Additionally, the bench underscored that Rule 10A CPC serves a salutary purpose in ensuring fair litigation and cannot be rendered otiose by hyper-technical interpretations. It mandated that advocates must provide not just notice of death but also details of legal representatives for meaningful compliance. The observations reaffirmed that procedural rules should facilitate, not obstruct, the dispensation of justice.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Patna High Court’s 2014 judgment that had dismissed the case on grounds of abatement. The Court held that the defendants’ failure to disclose the death of certain respondents during first appellate proceedings—in violation of Order XXII Rule 10A CPC—barred them from later claiming abatement as a procedural defense. The matter was remanded to the High Court with specific directions: to first determine whether the decree was joint and indivisible (which would necessitate setting aside abatement and permitting substitution of legal heirs) or severable (allowing partial adjudication).Emphasizing substantive justice over technicalities, the judgment mandated fresh adjudication within three months, prioritizing the 40-year-old litigation’s expeditious resolution. The Court clarified that if the High Court finds the decree joint/indivisible, it must remand to the First Appellate Court to allow the plaintiffs to seek abatement setting aside and substitution. Conversely, if severable, the High Court was to decide the Second Appeal on merits. The ruling reinforced that suppression of material facts (like a party’s death) vitiates claims of procedural laches, aligning with the maxim “no one can profit from their own wrong.” Costs were not awarded, preserving parity between parties for the rehearing.
Case Details:
Case Title:Binod Pathak & Ors. vs. Shankar Choudhary & Ors. Citation:2025 INSC 842 Appeal No.:Civil Appeal No. 7706 of 2025 Date of Judgment:14th July 2025 Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here