Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Abatement Following Death of Sole Respondent. The appeal abated as the appellant failed to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time limit under Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the respondent, Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross, who passed away on December 10, 1978. Following the respondent's death, the appellant failed to bring the legal representatives on record within the stipulated 90 days, leading to the abatement of the appeal on March 11, 1979. An application was made on August 29, 1979, to set aside the abatement, but it was not accompanied by an affidavit explaining the delay. The court noted that the clerk of the appellant's counsel had been served with a copy of the application regarding the respondent's death on February 23, 1979, yet no action was taken until much later. The court emphasized that the knowledge of the respondent's death was attributable to the appellant and that the negligence in not moving the court in time was deemed to be that of the appellant. The counsel for the appellant argued for the condonation of the delay, citing a strong case on merits; however, the court found no sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the abatement prevented the appeal from being heard on its merits.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Right to Sue - The right to sue survived to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. - Civil Procedure Code, Order XXII, Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The appeal abated due to failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time limit, and the application to set aside the abatement was time-barred. Held that the abatement stands in the way of the appeal being heard on merits (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the abatement of the appeal could be set aside despite the delay in bringing legal representatives on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the abatement stood in the way of the appeal being heard on merits and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was established.

Law Points

  • Abatement of appeal
  • Limitation for legal representatives
  • Survival of right to sue
  • Condonation of delay
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1981 LawText (SC) (09) 19

Civil Appeal No. 353 of 1969

1981-09-01

KOSHAL, A.D., ERADI, V., BALAKRISHNA (J), MISRA, R.B. (J)

1981 AIR 1921, 1982 SCR (1) 551, 1981 SCC (4) 1, 1981 SCALE (3) 1793

M.N. Phadke, S. C. Patel, R.N. Poddar, D.V. Patel, R.A. Shraff, Gopal Subramaniam, D.P. Mohanty

STATE OF GUJARAT

SAYED MOHD. BAQUIR EL EDROSS

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding abatement due to the death of the sole respondent.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the abatement and proceed with the appeal.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat.

Previous Decisions

The High Court's decision was rendered on July 19/20, 1965.

Issues

Whether the abatement of the appeal could be set aside despite the delay in bringing legal representatives on record.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued for condonation of delay citing a strong case on merits. The respondent's legal representatives were not brought on record in time.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to sue survives to legal representatives upon the death of a party, and failure to bring them on record within the prescribed time leads to abatement of the appeal, which cannot be set aside without sufficient cause for delay.

Judgment Excerpts

The abatement stands in the way of the appeal being heard on merits. No sufficient cause, however, for the condonation of the delay is made out from any material on the record.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat dated July 19/20, 1965. The sole respondent died on December 10, 1978, and the appeal abated on March 11, 1979, due to failure to bring legal representatives on record.

Acts & Sections

  • Civil Procedure Code: Order XXII
  • Limitation Act: Article 121
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award Without Reasons — Clarifies Obligations of Arbitrators. The court ruled that arbitrators are not required to provide reasons unless stipulated in the arbitration agreement, emphasizing the importance of final...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in PC Act Case Due to Lack of Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to establish demand a...