Two petitions challenged the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority in 2022 concerning delay in bringing legal heirs on record after the deaths of the original plaintiff and defendant. The suit was kept sine die due to a tenancy issue, which was referred to the Mamlatdar. The legal heirs were brought on record in the tenancy proceedings, and the First Appellate Court held that the same should apply to the civil suit. The Bombay High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, reiterating that the tenancy issue was central to the case and must be resolved before the civil suit could proceed.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Legal heirs of the original defendants.
   • Respondents: Legal heirs of the original plaintiffs.

2. Original Case:

   • Two civil suits were filed by Fr. Antonio Barbosa (deceased) in 2000.
   • The defendants raised a tenancy issue, leading to the case being referred to the Mamlatdar and kept sine die.

3. Death of Original Parties:

   • Fr. Barbosa passed away in 1995.
   • The sole defendant, Anand, died in 2005.

4. Tenancy Proceedings:

   • Legal heirs of both parties were brought on record in the tenancy proceedings before the Mamlatdar.
   • The civil suit remained sine die until the tenancy issue was resolved.

5. Appellate Court's Decision (2022):

   • The First Appellate Court condoned the delay in bringing the legal heirs on record in the civil suit.
   • It set aside the abatement of the suit, allowing the legal heirs to continue the proceedings.

6. Petitioners' Argument:

   • The suit abated when Fr. Barbosa died, as no application to bring his legal heirs was made in time.
   • The referral to the Mamlatdar was without jurisdiction since the plaintiff had already died.

7. Respondents' Argument:

   • The tenancy issue must be resolved first, as required by Section 58(2) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
   • Since the legal heirs were already brought on record in the tenancy proceedings, the same should apply to the civil suit.

8. High Court’s Decision:

   • The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court's ruling, stating that the legal heirs, once brought on record in connected proceedings, should be treated as parties in the main suit as well.
   • The tenancy issue was the central matter, and the suit could not proceed until it was resolved by the Mamlatdar.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Order 22, Rule 10-A of CPC: Procedure for bringing legal representatives on record after the death of a party.
• Section 58(2) of the Agricultural Tenancy Act: Mandates that tenancy issues must be referred to the Mamlatdar before proceeding with a civil suit.

Ratio:
The High Court held that once legal heirs are brought on record in related proceedings (tenancy), the same should apply to the civil suit. The delay in bringing legal heirs on record was condoned as the civil suit remained sine die due to the pending decision on the tenancy issue. Additionally, it was ruled that the legal heirs need not be brought separately on record for every connected case, as the proceedings were inherently linked.

Subject and Tags:

• Subject: Civil Procedure, Tenancy Law, Abatement of Suit, Legal Representatives, Civil Suit, Legal Heirs, Condonation of Delay, CPC, Agricultural Tenancy Act.