P. Jesaya (Dead) By Lrs. v. Sub-Collector And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an appeal against a judgment of the High Court. The appellant contended that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the first respondent (in that High Court appeal) died. According to the appellant, the deceased respondent’s heirs were not brought on record, resulting in abatement of the High Court appeal. The appellant therefore argued that the High Court’s judgment was non est and unenforceable. The Supreme Court granted leave, heard the parties at length, and decided the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court appeal abated due to the death of the first respondent during its pendency and failure to bring the legal heirs on record, rendering the High Court judgment non est and unenforceable.
2. Whether the appellant could rely on abatement when no intimation of the respondent’s death was given to the court or the opposite side and counsel continued to appear and argue on behalf of the deceased respondent.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The first respondent in the High Court appeal died during the pendency of that appeal, and his heirs were not substituted.
• As a result, the High Court appeal abated under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Reliance was placed on Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691 and Amba Bai v. Gopal (2001) 5 SCC 570.
• Since the appeal had abated, the High Court judgment was contended to be non est and incapable of enforcement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant’s submission regarding abatement was “attractive” when viewed through the lens of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. However, the court held that another provision—Order 22 Rule 10 CPC—must also be kept in mind.

The court emphasized that it is obligatory on the pleader of a deceased party to inform the court and the other side about the fact of death. On the facts, the court found that no intimation of the first respondent’s death had been given either to the court or to the opposing party. Instead, counsel appeared on behalf of the deceased person and argued the matter.

From this, the court concluded that the strategy was to attempt to obtain a favourable order and, if unsuccessful, later use the undisclosed death as a ground to set aside the order. The court characterized this as an attempt to “take not just the other side but also the court for a ride,” and held that such tactics should not be permitted. On that basis, it found no reason to interfere with the High Court judgment.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.

As a direct consequence, the High Court judgment was left undisturbed and remained effective between the parties. The court’s refusal to interfere was grounded in the failure to disclose the respondent’s death and the continued appearance/argument by counsel for the deceased, and the court indicated that such litigation tactics would not be allowed to defeat the adjudication. The opinion does not state any broader implications beyond the parties, and it does not indicate that any new precedent was set.