Summary
A second-appeal decree passed after the sole appellant’s death, without substitution or revival of the abated appeal, was a nullity. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide an appeal that had automatically abated. The deceased respondents’ representatives could challenge that defect, including in collateral or execution proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could decide the abated appeal without substituting the deceased parties.
Provisions considered
- Order XXII Rules 3, 4 and 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Non-substitution caused abatement; revival required appropriate substitution and abatement applications. (¶ 17–21)
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The Court identified condonation of delay as part of the necessary revival process in this case. (¶ 21)
Held
- No legal representatives were brought on record after the appellant and two respondents died. The appeal had abated automatically and had not been revived. (¶ 17–21)
- The resulting decree in favour of and against deceased persons was a nullity affecting the Court’s authority; the representatives could challenge it in appeal or execution. (¶ 22–23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside.