LexSWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRS versus SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 462 : 2024 INSC 352 Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr LRs v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5569-5570 of 2024) 30 April 2024 [A.S. Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, while substituting Respondent No.6 as the appellant in the Second Appeal, has followed the correct procedure prescribed under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXII Rule 5 – Significance of substitution – Substitution gives the right to the substituted legal representatives to contest the claim of the deceased. Held: The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case – The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person so substituted – It only confers the right to represent the estate of the deceased in the pending proceedings – Despite the limited purpose of substitution of legal representatives, it has its significance in as much as it gives the right to the substituted legal representatives to contest the claim of the deceased. [Paras 10 & 11] Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXII Rule 5 – Explained Order XXII Rule 5 CPC mandates that in case of death of plaintiff or defendant, if a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of the deceased party, the court shall first determine such a question – Proviso of this Rule is only an enabling provision where the appellate court may before deciding the question refer the matter to a subordinate court to try and record its findings which may be considered by the Appellate Court while taking a final call on the issue. [Para 14] Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXII Rule 5 – Proviso cannot be construed as delegation of the powers of the Appellate Court to substitute the deceased party, but is merely to assist it in ultimately deciding the issue of substitution Held: While dealing with the report sent by the subordinate court under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC, the Appellate Court may consider the [2024] 5 S.C.R. 463 Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr LRs v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors. findings of the subordinate court and then give its reasons before reaching any conclusion – The proviso to Rule 5 gives discretion to the Appellate Court to make its own separate opinion notwithstanding the opinion of the subordinate court – The proviso cannot be construed to be a delegation of the powers of the Appellate Court to substitute the deceased party, but is merely to assist it in ultimately deciding the issue of substitution – Thus, the Appellate Court ‘may’ take into consideration the material referred by the subordinate court under Rule 5 of Order 22, CPC along with the objections, if any, against the report while deciding on the substitution of the appellant. [Para 17] Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXII Rule 5 – Correct procedure not followed by the Appellate Court as it failed to consider the evidence in support of the Respondent No.6 and the objections against the Trial Court report while making its determination on substitution. Held: The High Court, being the Appellate Court, while substituting Respondent No.6 as the appellant in the Second Appeal did not follow the correct procedure – The High Court has misread Rule 5, as well as the previous order of the Supreme Court, as it failed to consider the objections against the Trial Court report while making its determination on substitution – The High Court did not discuss the evidence in support of the claim of the Respondent No. 6 nor did it consider the objections of the other party on such claims. [Paras 13, 15-16] Case Law Cited Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust [2008] 7 SCR 734 : (2008) 8 SCC 521 – referred on. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Substitution application; Legal Representatives; Significance of substitution; Appellate Court; Discretion. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5569-5570 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in IA Nos. 7 and 8 of 2019 in S.A. No. 169 of 1993 464 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Advs. for the Appellants. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Vijay K. Jain, Rohit K. Singh, Pritam Bishwas,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.