Summary
An appellate court must itself determine a disputed legal-representative substitution after considering the subordinate court’s enquiry report, evidence and objections. Order XXII Rule 5 permits assistance through an enquiry, not delegation of the final decision. The High Court’s orders accepting one rival claimant without addressing objections or the deceased rival’s pending substitution were set aside and the matter remitted. Substitution represents the estate for litigation and does not determine title.
Issues
- Whether an enquiry report bound the appellate court deciding disputed substitution.
- Whether the rival objections and pending successor application required consideration.
- Whether substitution itself conferred property rights.
Provisions considered
- Order XXII Rule 5 and proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The court must determine disputed representation; an appellate court may obtain an enquiry report but retains the final adjudicatory responsibility and must consider the relevant material and objections. (¶¶ 10, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- Substitution serves continuation of litigation through representation of the deceased’s estate. It confers the procedural right to contest that case, not substantive title against rival claimants to the estate. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The proviso allows a subordinate court to try the question and return evidence, findings and reasons. It does not delegate the appellate court’s power to decide substitution or bind it to the report. The appellate court must assess the report with objections and relevant evidence and give its own reasons. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The earlier remand required consideration of the enquiry report and both sides’ objections. The High Court instead adopted the report without examining the rival objections and proceeded after the rival claimant’s death without considering the pending substitution issue. Dismissing the successor’s recall and substitution applications on that footing perpetuated the procedural error. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 16)
- Both the substantive substitution order and the later rejection of recall/substitution applications were set aside. The High Court must decide substitution afresh; the Supreme Court expressed no view on the competing claims’ merits. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Orders dated 30 January and 19 June 2019 set aside; disputed substitution remitted to the High Court for fresh decision, with rival claims’ merits left open. Appeals disposed of.