The Supreme Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party.
Case title: Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Appeal Nos. 5569-5570 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1717-1718 of 2020)
Dated on: 30th April 2024
Quorum: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
FACTS OF THE CASE
A recent case, outlined in the judgment, underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly concerning the substitution of legal representatives in pending cases.
The case revolves around a civil suit concerning a property dispute in Bihar. Swami Shivdharmanand was one of the defendants in the suit. After his demise, the question arose regarding the substitution of his legal representative in the ongoing second appeal before the Patna High Court.
Two individuals, Swami Triyoganand and Swami Satyanand, claimed to be the rightful successors to Swami Shivdharmanand’s position. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives. However, this decision was challenged, leading to a remand by the Supreme Court for the High Court to reconsider the matter.
Upon reconsideration, the High Court upheld Swami Satyanand as the legal representative, dismissing the claim of Swami Triyoganand. Dissatisfied with this decision, Swami Vedvyasanand, who claimed through Swami Triyoganand, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized the procedural nuances involved in determining legal representation. While the substitution of legal representatives is crucial for the continuity of legal proceedings, it does not confer any substantive rights. Instead, it merely allows representation of the deceased’s estate in ongoing litigation.
The Court referred to Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates the court to determine the legal representative of a deceased party. Moreover, the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the appellate court to refer the matter to a subordinate court for factual inquiry, whose findings are then considered by the appellate court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj, the appellant, contested the order of the High Court, which substituted Swami Satyanand as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal. The appellant, through detailed contentions, argued that the High Court’s decision to reject his substitution application and uphold Swami Satyanand’s representation was procedurally flawed.
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the legal provisions governing the substitution of parties upon the death of a litigant. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to due process, the Court highlighted the limited purpose of substitution, which is to ensure the continuity of proceedings, rather than conferring any substantive rights.
Citing the precedent set in Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, the Court reiterated that the determination of legal representation is crucial for the proper adjudication of the case. However, this determination does not grant any proprietary rights to the substituted party.
The Court noted the erroneous interpretation of Order 22 Rule 5 by the High Court and criticized its failure to consider the objections raised against the Trial Court’s report. Additionally, the Court clarified that the proviso to Rule 5 empowers the Appellate Court to consider the findings of the subordinate court while making an independent decision on substitution.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents, claiming to be successors to the deceased Swami Shivdharmanand, sought substitution in the pending appeal. Initially, the High Court allowed both parties to be substituted as legal representatives, leading to subsequent legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s intervention was sought to clarify the correct procedure for determining legal representation.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC reads as follows: Determination of question as to legal representative. — Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court.
Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.
ISSUE –
- The primary issue revolved around the correct procedure for substituting legal representatives in a pending appeal, particularly concerning conflicting claims.
- Whether the High Court adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) while determining legal representation.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the procedural lapses in the High Court’s decision-making process. It emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties to present their claims.
The Court scrutinized Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, highlighting its mandate for the court to determine the rightful legal representative upon the death of a party. It underscored the discretionary power of the Appellate Court to consider evidence and objections before making a conclusive decision on substitution.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It reiterated the procedural lapses observed and emphasized the need for adherence to statutory provisions. The Court clarified that its decision pertained solely to procedural irregularities and refrained from opining on the substantive merits of the claims.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A