#specialleavepetition Archives

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: 30^th 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

Click here to View full Judgement

Case Title – Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (La)

Case Number – Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 Of 2018

Order Number – 8^th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (La), the facts revolve around a land acquisition dispute in a village named Gandluru, District Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. In this case, a reference was filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act when a dispute arose involving 16 claimants being disappointed with the compensation offered to them. An appeal was filed to revert the decision of the reference by the second surviving daughter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) who was the claimant No.11 in the said case. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on September 24,1999 to condone a delay of 5659 days in filing the proffered appeal. The decision was negligent and lacked procedural review. Initially, the case was instituted as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the petitioners to challenge the decision of the High Court to dismiss the proffered appeal. After a substantial period, more than 6 years later, an appeal was premeditated to be filed in the High Court under Section 54 of the L.O.A. Out of the original 16 claimants, only those aligned with the claimant No.11 showed keen engrossment in challenging the preceding decision of reference, whereas the rest of the claimants opted not to take any action or initiate any independent appeals. The legal heir of claimant No.11 discovered the fact that the appeal delayed by a period of 5659 days was due to a dismissal of reference in 1999. A prompt appeal was filed justifying the delay. The condonation of delay in instituting the appeal beyond the prescribed time of limitation was declined by the High Court and the same was reasoned as time-barred in the order dated 18.01.2017. The petitioners contested the ruling of the High Court to dismiss the appeal stating it as time-barred which revolves around a dispute concerning the condonation of delay in instituting an appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The Petitioner, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compensation provided to them for the land acquisition was inadequate and significantly lower than the market value of the land.
The Petitioner through their counsel, in the said case contented that the method used for valuation was incorrect and that the relevant documents were not considered before conducting the valuation of the land.
The Petitioner through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay of condonation was due to the dismissal of reference and that the LR lacked proper legal guidance after the dismissal of the reference.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the compensation provided to the petitioner for the land acquisition was adequate and that the land valuation was done appropriately considering the market value of the land.
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the relevant documents were also considered before conducting the valuation of the land.
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the petitioners were negligent and lacked sufficient cause for the delay in condonation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the Reference to Court
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribes the Appeals in Proceedings Before Court
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the Bar of Limitation
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes Extension of Prescribed Period in Certain Case

ISSUES

The main issue of the said case revolves around whether the compensation provided to the petitioners for the land acquisition were apt?
Another issue revolved around whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified and whether it should be condoned based on the negligence, lack of due diligence and absence of sufficient cause.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The decision of the High Court in refusing the condonation of delay was upheld by the Supreme Court of India which led to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. Four reasons were stated on which the judgment was established. The first reason was that there was a lack of due diligence on the petitioner’s part in hounding the matter. The second reason was that there was negligence on the part of the claimant in pursuing the reference and instituting the premeditated appeal. The third reason was that out of the 16 claimants, most of them accepted the reference court’s decision and the last reason was that the claimants did not seek procedural review. The court accentuated the need for furnishing sufficient cause to justify the condonation of delay in legal proceedings as well as the adherence to the law of limitation. The court observed that the resurrection of dead matters cannot be used in the context of phrases “Justice-Oriented” and “Liberal Approach” under the Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. The court also asserted a lack of merit in the Special Leave Petition from the petitioner’s side in filing an appeal in the stipulated time frame keeping in view the limitation period. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of merit

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click here to View Judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

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.

“Supreme Court Affirms High Court Ruling: Land Acquisition Appeal Dismissed on Grounds of Time Bar and Lack of Merit”