Md. Murad Iman and Ors. Vs Md. Suleman Sheikh and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Md. Murad Iman and Ors. Vs Md. Suleman Sheikh and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All interlocutory applications disposed of and allowed: delays condoned (136 days - Respondent No. 3; around a year attributable delay - substitution of Appellant No. 1's heirs via IA(Civil)/1764/2020; limitation exemption per Supreme Court order - Respondent No. 1; 392 days - Respondent No. 5); abatements of Respondent Nos. 3, 1 and 5 and of Appellant No. 1 set aside; legal representatives/heirs substituted or added as Respondent Nos. 3.1-3.4, Respondent Nos. 1.1-1.4, Respondent Nos. 5.1-5.4, Appellant Nos. 1.1-1.5 and Appellant Nos. 6.1-6.4 (the last by striking out Appellant No. 6 under Order I Rule 10); Appellants directed to file a fresh memo of parties within 7 (seven) days for updating the Cause Title and CIS.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 136 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement of Respondent No. 3 to the accompanying appeal should be condoned, the abatement set aside, and his legal representatives substituted (MC/3414/2010, MC/3415/2010, MC/3416/2010). +4 more

Court's answer

The delay in filing the application seeking setting aside of the abatement of Respondent No. 3, and the application for setting aside the abatement, stand allowed; Respondent No. 3 is substituted by his legal representatives, arrayed in the accompanying appeal as Respondent Nos. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

Ratio / Principle

IA (Civil) No. 1764/2020 is allowed by condoning the delay, and MC No. 2175/2012 is allowed by substituting the applicants to the accompanying appeal as Appellant Nos. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5.

Key takeaways

IA(Civil) No. 1765/2020, which is for setting aside the abatement of Appellant No. 1, is also allowed.ratio¶¶226
MC No. 2176/2012, an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, is decided by adding the applicants and striking out Appellant No. 6, arraying them in the accompanying appeal as Appellant Nos. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4; the application is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶¶226
The delay attributable to the substitution of Appellant No. 1 was assessed as around a year, the appellant having expired on 13.12.2010 and Misc Case No. 2175/2012 having been filed on 16.07.2012.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah J., order dated 06.05.2025) disposed of twelve linked interlocutory applications in a pending appeal involving deceased appellants and respondents. Allowed: (i) MC/3414-3416/2010 - 136 days' delay condoned, abatement of Respondent No. 3 set aside, his legal representatives substituted as Respondent Nos. 3.1-3.4; (ii) IA(Civil)/1764-1765/2020 and MC/2175/2012 - delay in substituting the legal heirs of Appellant No. 1 (died 13.12.2010) condoned, the Court assessing the attributable delay at about one year (heirs-substitution application filed 16.07.2012), heirs substituted as Appellant Nos. 1.1-1.5 and abatement set aside; (iii) MC/2176/2012 - under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the daughters/legal heirs of deceased Appellant No. 6 added as Appellant Nos. 6.1-6.4 by striking out Appellant No. 6; (iv) IA(C)/1697-1698/2022 - abatement of Respondent No. 1 (died 04.10.2020) set aside and legal representatives substituted as Respondent Nos. 1.1-1.4, the substitution application being held within limitation in view of a Supreme Court order exempting the limitation period; (v) IA(Civil)/1464-1466/2024 - 392 days' delay condoned and abatement of Respondent No. 5 (died 23.07.2022) set aside with substitution as Respondent Nos. 5.1-5.4, service on him having failed during pendency so that the appellants were unaware of the death. The Court observed that the provisions of Order XXII CPC are for the purpose of continuation of the suit. Appellants directed to file a fresh memo of parties within seven days.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Misc Case No. 3414/2010: application seeking condonation of delay of 136 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement of Respondent No. 3 to the accompanying appeal.¶¶212
Prior proceeding
Misc Case No. 3415/2010: application for substitution of the Legal Representatives of Respondent No. 3.¶¶215
Prior proceeding
Misc Case No. 3416/2010: application for setting aside the abatement in so far as Respondent No. 3 is concerned.¶¶216
Prior proceeding
Service had been duly effected upon the legal representatives of Respondent No. 3 and none opposed the substitution.¶¶217
Prior proceeding
Misc Case No. 2175/2012: application for substitution of Appellant No. 1, who had expired on 13.12.2010, by applicant Nos. 1(a) to 1(e).¶¶220
Prior proceeding
Misc Case No. 2176/2012: application for addition of applicants, as upon the death of Appellant No. 6 her legal representatives (Appellant Nos. 2-5) were on record but the daughters, upon whom rights also devolved, were not made parties to the suit.¶¶221
Prior proceeding
IA(Civil) No. 1764/2020: application seeking condonation of delay of 1826 days in filing the application for substitution of the legal heirs of Appellant No. 1, who expired on 13.12.2010.¶¶224
Prior proceeding
The Court assessed the delay attributable to the substitution of Appellant No. 1 as around a year, the appellant having died on 13.12.2010 and Misc Case No. 2175/2012 having been filed on 16.07.2012.¶¶225
Prior proceeding
IA(C) No. 1697/2022: application for setting aside the abatement of Respondent No. 1, who expired on 04.10.2020.¶¶229
Prior proceeding
IA(C) No. 1698/2022: application for substitution of the legal representatives of Respondent No. 1; the Respondent No. 1 expired on 04.10.2020 and the applications were filed on 04.06.2022.¶¶230
Prior proceeding
IA(Civil) Nos. 1464/2024, 1465/2024 and 1466/2024: applications seeking condonation of delay in setting aside the abatement of Respondent No. 5 (expired 23.07.2022), setting aside the said abatement, and substitution of his legal representatives.¶¶232
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the appeal, service upon Respondent No. 5 could not be effected and consequently the Appellants were not aware of his death.¶¶235