The High Court reaffirms that a civil appeal must be dismissed as abated when no steps are taken to implead legal heirs after the death of a party, in line with settled law. The judgment upholds existing procedure and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts in civil litigation matters relating to abatement due to non-impleadment of legal representatives.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | AS/770/2019 of KOLANDASMAY GOUNDER Vs RANGASAMY |
| CNR | HCMA011771952019 |
| Date of Registration | 31-10-2019 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS ABATED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Effect of failure to take steps to implead legal heirs after death of parties in appeal |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appeal suit stands dismissed as abated because no steps were taken to implead the legal heirs of deceased appellants and a respondent. The Court cited the fact that since 2020, after the passing of respondent 3, and after the subsequent deaths of both appellants, no application for substitution was filed. In accordance with civil procedure, the non-impleadment of legal representatives within the prescribed period leads to abatement and, consequently, dismissal of the appeal. This maintains procedural discipline and finality in litigation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The case was listed as a default case. Respondent 3 had died in 2020, and both appellants had also died. No steps were taken to implead the legal heirs of any of the deceased parties. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4 was present, but the appellant’s counsel admitted to not taking steps to implead heirs. The appeal was therefore dismissed as abated. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (Madras High Court jurisdiction) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, potentially, the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment underscores strict compliance with Order 22 CPC regarding substitution of legal heirs.
- Omitting to implead legal representatives after the death of a party results in abatement and automatic dismissal.
- Counsel must vigilantly track status of all parties and promptly move substitution applications to avoid fatal procedural defects.
- The court will not condone delay or overlook failure to take timely steps for substitution in appeal matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that since 2020, following the death of respondent 3 and the subsequent deaths of the appellants, no applications had been filed to implead the respective legal heirs.
- The presence of counsel for respondents 2 and 4 was recorded, but there was no representation or steps taken for the deceased parties’ estates.
- The judge applied the settled procedure under Order 22 Code of Civil Procedure, holding that without substitution, the appeal abates as to the deceased parties.
- The Court concluded that procedural compliance is mandatory to prevent abatement and that failure to do so results in dismissal as abated.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- No arguments advanced on merits; counsel admitted no steps were taken to bring on record legal heirs of deceased appellants.
Respondents:
- Counsel for respondents 2 and 4 appeared.
- Respondent 1 refused to appear.
- Respondent 3 was recorded as deceased; no substitution done.
Factual Background
The appeal suit arose from a civil dispute pending before the I Additional District Judge, Erode. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent 3 died in 2020 and both appellants subsequently also passed away. From the time of their deaths, no application was filed by the appellants’ or respondents’ counsel to implead or substitute legal representatives of the deceased parties. The matter was listed as a default case, leading to its dismissal as abated.
Statutory Analysis
The Court applied Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that if a party to a suit or appeal dies, the legal representatives must be brought on record within a prescribed time. Failure to do so results in the abatement of the suit or appeal to the extent of the interest of the deceased party.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines issued. The procedure followed is in line with existing practice under Order 22 CPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows settled law regarding abatement due to non-impleadment of legal representatives under the Civil Procedure Code.