Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from an order in a pending Second Appeal before the Patna High Court. The dispute concerns the substitution of legal representatives after the death of the original defendant, Swami Shivdharmanand Ji Maharaj. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it, leading to a second appeal by Swami Shivdharmanand. After his death, two claimants, Swami Triyoganand and Swami Satyanand, sought substitution. The High Court initially substituted both, but the Supreme Court set aside that order and remanded the matter for a proper determination under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC. The High Court then, on 30.01.2019, upheld the Trial Court's report and substituted only Swami Satyanand, rejecting Swami Triyoganand's claim. However, by that time, Swami Triyoganand had died, and his alleged successor, Swami Vedvyasanand, had filed applications for substitution and recall of the order. The High Court dismissed these applications without considering the pending substitution application. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not following the correct procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, as it failed to consider the objections against the Trial Court report and did not hear the appellant before passing the order. The Court emphasized that substitution is only for the limited purpose of representing the estate and does not confer title. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the substitution application afresh after hearing all parties.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Substitution of Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rule 5 CPC - Determination of Legal Representative - The High Court failed to consider the objections against the Trial Court report and did not follow the correct procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC while substituting Swami Satyanand as the legal representative, ignoring the pending substitution application of the appellant. Held that the High Court must decide the substitution application after hearing all parties and considering the objections (Paras 12-15).
B) Civil Procedure - Substitution of Legal Representatives - Limited Purpose - Order 22 Rule 5 CPC - Substitution as legal representative only confers the right to represent the estate of the deceased in pending proceedings and does not confer any title to the property. Reliance placed on Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521 (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the substitution application of the appellant without considering the pending application and without following the procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2019 and remanded the matter to the Patna High Court to decide the substitution application of the appellant afresh, after hearing all parties and considering the objections, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Substitution of legal representatives
- Order 22 Rule 5 CPC
- Right to be heard
- Natural justice
- Remand
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (4) 300
Civil Appeal Nos. 1234-1235 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12345-12346 of 2019)
(A.S. Bopanna, J ; Sudhanshu Dhulia, J)
Shyam Divan, Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Vijay K. Jain, Krishnan Venugopal, Rohit K. Singh
Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (since deceased, now represented by Sadhavi Sarojanand)
Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order dismissing substitution application in pending second appeal.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought substitution as legal representative of deceased Swami Triyoganand and recall of High Court order dated 30.01.2019.
Filing Reason
High Court dismissed substitution and recall applications without considering pending substitution application and without following proper procedure.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed suit; First Appellate Court decreed suit; High Court initially substituted both claimants; Supreme Court remanded for proper determination; High Court then substituted only Swami Satyanand.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the substitution application of the appellant without considering the pending application and without following the procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the High Court passed the order dated 30.01.2019 after the death of Swami Triyoganand and without considering the pending substitution application, violating principles of natural justice.
Respondent argued that the Trial Court report had already determined Swami Satyanand as the legal representative, and the appellant's claim was based on Swami Triyoganand whose claim was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court must follow the procedure under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, which mandates that the court shall determine the question of legal representation after considering all objections and hearing parties. Substitution is only for the limited purpose of representing the estate and does not confer title.
Judgment Excerpts
The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case. The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person so substituted.
The High Court ignored the fact that the order dated 30.01.2019 was passed after the death of Swami Triyoganand and without considering the pending substitution application.
We are not commenting on the merits of the High Court finding on Swami Satyanand being the rightful representative in the case, we are only on the procedure followed by the High Court while doing so.
Procedural History
Suit dismissed by Trial Court on 26.03.1991; First Appellate Court decreed suit; Second appeal filed by defendant Swami Shivdharmanand; Defendant died on 20.03.1999; Two claimants sought substitution; High Court initially substituted both; Supreme Court set aside and remanded on 08.02.2018; High Court on 30.01.2019 substituted only Swami Satyanand; Appellant filed substitution and recall applications on 22.02.2019; High Court dismissed them on 19.06.2019; Present appeal filed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 22 Rule 5
