Joint and Indivisible Decree - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly rejected the applications for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant. The Court ruled that the second appeal abated entirely as the decree was joint and indivisible, and non-substitution of the deceased appellant's legal representatives would lead to inconsistent decrees. The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC does not override the abatement principles under Order XXII, especially when the appeal was jointly filed by all appellants. The judgment emphasized that abatement is inevitable if the decree is based on common grounds and its reversal would create conflicting outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from Civil Suit No. 13 of 1983 (r...

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, ...

Tag: Joint and Indivisible Decree

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

Supreme Court Ruling :How Non-Disclosure of Death in Court Cases Can Backfire