Syed Riyajuddin Chishti and or Vs Chandra Prakash and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Syed Riyajuddin Chishti and or Vs Chandra Prakash and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal stood abated, and was liable to be dismissed in abatement, owing to the failure to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent-plaintiff Chandra Prakash despite the appellants' knowledge of his death since 2008. +1 more

Court's answer

After more than sixteen years no efforts were made for substitution of the LRs of the deceased respondent (sole plaintiff); hence the appeal stands abated and is liable to be dismissed in abatement.

Ratio / Principle

When parties are in litigation in several proceedings and have knowledge about the death of any of the parties, the duty lies upon them to file an application for substitution in all pending proceedings, whether before the trial Court or the Appellate Court.

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing, the appeal stands dismissed in abatement.ratio¶27
The Misc. application also stands disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 11/2006, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Ashok Kumar Jain, J.), order dated 17/02/2025: The defendant-appellants filed Application No.1/2024 seeking abatement of the appeal on the ground that the contesting respondent-plaintiff Chandra Prakash had expired on 07.10.2007. Counsel for the respondent side submitted that the appellants had known of the death since 2008 and had already sought substitution of legal heirs before the trial Court, where other proceedings are pending, yet had made no efforts in the appeal. Holding that a party who, while litigating in several proceedings, learns of the death of another party bears the duty to seek substitution in all pending proceedings — whether before the trial Court or the Appellate Court — the Judge observed that after more than sixteen years no efforts had been made to substitute the LRs of the deceased respondent (sole plaintiff). Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed in abatement, and the Misc. application stands disposed of. No statute or precedent is cited in the order.

[2025:RJ-JP:6898]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 11/2006

Syed Riyajuddin Chishti son of Shri Shanshuddin, aged 36 years, resident of 34/355 Gaffar Building Chhota Chotik, Khadim Mohallsh, Dargah Shareef, Ajmer

Syed Basheer Bon of Shri Shamshaddin, resident of 34/355, Gaffar, Building Chhota Chowk, Khadim Mohallah, Dargah Shareef, Ajmer

----Defendant-Appellant

Versus

Chandra Prakash son of Shri Bhawarlai, Karta of Joint Hindu Family late Seth Bhawanlal Goyal, resident of House No.20/5 Hindu Mochi Mohallah, Ajmer.

...Plaintiff-respondent

Parsumal son of Shri Lalchand, resident of Shanti Nagar, Mlusar Road, Ajmer.

Nagar Parishad, Ajmer through Commissioner, Ajmer.

----Proforma-defendant-Respondents

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Lokesh Tiwari for
		Mr. M.M Ranjan, Sr. Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Meenal Bhargawa for
		Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv.
		Mr. Ishan Kumawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

17/02/2025

Application No.1/2024 filed for abatement of appeal as contesting respondent-plaintiff Chandra Prakash expired on 07.10.2007.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent(s) submits that the appellants were in knowledge since 2008 about death of Chandra Prakash and they have already prayed for substitution of

[2025:RJ-JP:6898]

[CFA-11/2006]

(2 of 2)

legal heirs of Chandra Prakash before the trial Court wherein other proceedings are pending. She submits that despite knowledge since 2008, no efforts were made by the appellants to substitute legal heirs of contesting respondent No.1-plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the appellants requests for time and he submits that time be granted to him so that he can take steps.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of material placed on record, I am of the considered view that when parties are in litigation in several proceedings and having knowledge about death of any of the party then the duty lies upon them to file application for substitution in all pending proceedings whether it is before the trial Court or Appellate Court.

Herein, the instant application is filed on 21.09.2024 but for the purpose of listing, this case was listed on 16.10.2024 after filing of instant application. Thereafter on 13.01.2025, the counsel for the appellant sought time to file reply to the aforesaid application.

Now after more than 16 years, no efforts were made for substitution of LRs of deceased respondent (sole plaintiff). Hence, the appeal stands abated but same is liable to be dismissed in abatement.

In view of aforesaid the appeal stands dismissed in abatement.

Misc. application also stands disposed of.

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

MR/54