Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the High Court's order in a civil revision petition. The dispute concerned the hereditary chiefship (Khullakpa) of Lamdan Kabui village under Rongmei Kabui Customary Law. The appellant's father, Maringmei Thaitoungam, filed Original (Declaratory) Suit No. 3 of 2014 seeking declaration of his right as chief and to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 20.01.2014 recognizing the respondent as chief. During the pendency of a civil miscellaneous appeal against the refusal of temporary injunction, the father died on 07.09.2014. The appellant filed an application to come on record as legal representative, which was allowed by the appellate court on 18.09.2014. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit seeking to restrain the appellant from acting as chief. The High Court, in the impugned order dated 11.03.2021, held that the main suit had abated in December 2014 due to non-substitution of legal representatives within time, and therefore the civil miscellaneous appeal could not proceed. The Supreme Court, relying on Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar Sakharam Jedhe & Others (AIR 1965 SC 1794), held that the principle that bringing legal representatives on record at one stage of the suit enures for all subsequent stages applies to interlocutory appeals as well. Since the appellant was brought on record in the civil miscellaneous appeal within time, the appeal did not abate, and the High Court's order was set aside. The matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the civil revision petition afresh, including the respondent's contention that the relief was personal to the deceased.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXII Rules 3, 4, 11 - Abatement of Suit - Legal Representatives - Interlocutory Appeal - The principle that if legal representatives are brought on record within time at one stage of the suit, it enures for all subsequent stages, applies equally to interlocutory appeals. The High Court erred in holding that the civil miscellaneous appeal abated because the main suit had abated, ignoring that the appellant had been brought on record in the appeal within time. (Paras 9-11) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXII Rules 3, 4, 11 - Abatement - Interlocutory Appeal - Continuation of Suit - An appeal against an interlocutory order is a continuation of the suit. Therefore, bringing legal representatives on record in such an appeal enures for the entire suit, including subsequent stages. The High Court's finding that the suit abated is inconsistent with its own earlier finding that the appellant had an interest to continue the suit. (Paras 9-11) C) Customary Law - Hereditary Chiefship - Declaration Suit - Cause of Action - The appellant's father sought declaration of his right as chief and to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order recognizing the respondent. The High Court correctly held that the cause of action regarding the Deputy Commissioner's order survived for the appellant even after his father's death. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the civil miscellaneous appeal against refusal of temporary injunction abated due to abatement of the main suit, despite the appellant having been brought on record as legal representative in the appeal within time.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 11.03.2021, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the civil revision petition, including the respondent's contention regarding the personal nature of the relief.
Law Points
- Abatement of suit
- Legal representatives brought on record in appeal enure for subsequent stages
- Order XXII CPC
- Interlocutory appeal continuation of suit
