Supreme Court Bench Led by Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Rejects GAIL’s Claim: Says Electricity Regulator Right to Deny Lower Transmission Charges

This article discusses one of the major judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India in 2025 based on a very old civil dispute that initiated in 1983. The questions posed in the case before the apex court as Civil Appeal Nos. (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15900-15902/2022) are first and foremost what legal principle is. Abatement otherwise known as abatement upon death contains the causes of abatement upon death in the event where a party that is involved dies and the legal heir was not introduced in the case within a certain period of time the result is that abatement ensues. The Supreme Court made a careful review of the cases where an appeal lapses totally and those where an appeal may still be adopted, despite the death of about some parties. In this decision, important changes are enlightened in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), mainly in the replacement of legal representatives, as well as the effect of a joint decree.

Short Details of the Controversy

This legal tussle finds its genesis in a civil suit that was filed in 1983 (renumbered as 16A of 1997). The plaintiff filed a declaration of ownership with recovery of possession and mesne profits of a house property against two defendants i.e., Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu. The plaintiff asserted that the ancestor was the only person who owned it and the defendants were tenants. On the other hand, Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu presented a common defence, they denied that the property ever formed part of tenancy and offered that they had a title in them through their ancestor alleging exclusive interest that was created by partition in 1947.

The suit was originally overturned by the trial court. But this decision was overturned by the first appeal court and the case was given in favor of the plaintiff. This was a source of aggravation to the legal heirs of Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu and this group filed a second appeal before the High court. An important event that took place throughout the process in the High Court was the death of one out of the three appellants, Ram Babu, on August 19, 2015. His legal representatives were not made to record action within the required time although the court was aware of his death in April 2016. The High Court, therefore, on February 21, 2022, pronounced the appeal to be abated.

Subsequently, the application to condone delay in replacing the legal heirs of Ram Babu and to vacate abatement order were filed. Such applications were provided by legal heirs of Ram Babu and Suresh Chandra (who were already the members of the appeal). Since these applications were denied by the High Court on August 4, 2022, the appellants went to the Supreme Court.

We have Central Problems in the Supreme Court

Two main questions derived by the judgment of the High Court attracted the attention of the Supreme Court:

To begin with, was the High Court wrong in dismissing the requests to waive the time delay in cancelling the abatement and replacing legal representatives of Ram Babu? The court discussed on whether the reason of delay in entering of legal heirs in record was sufficient or not. Ram Babu passed on in August 2015 and the 90 (limitation period to substitute) and 60 days (limitation period to set aside abatement) expired in January 2016. The applications had been made in 2022 even though the death of Ram Babu had been brought to the attention of the court in 2016. In the same view, the Supreme Court did not change the conclusion that the High Court made considering the close links between the surviving and the deceased appellants; hence no adequate reason to justify the delay was indicated.

Secondly, and to a more fundamental point, having been correctly denied the delay condonation, did the complete second appeal lapse, or just part of it, by the non-substitution of legal heirs of Ram Babu? This problem entered the depths of the principles of joint decisions and the persistence of the right to sue (which runs up to the right of appeal).

Provisions of the Law and Standard Principles Reviewed

The analysis adopted by the Supreme Court touched on most of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), including predominantly Order XXII (Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties) and Order XLI Rule 4 (Appeal form original decrees).

Order XXII of CPC and Abatement: In this the court expounded the general principles of abatement. Order XXII Rule 1 provides that on death of a party a suit abates whilst the right to sue does not. These rules are applied also to appeals by Order XXII Rule 11, so that words like plaintiff and defendant are used wherever it is convenient referring, in this case, to an appellant and to a respondent. Rules 3 and 4 under the Order XXII settle the circumstances in which there is any death of one of the many plaintiffs or defendants in the case. When no application is taken to appoint legal representatives in their place, within the time allowed, the suit (or appeal) abates as regards the deceased person.

The court however stated that although Rule 3 and Rule 4 implies that abatement subsists on the side of the deceased litigant only, changes had been made in law and abatement may cover the whole case in some instances. The most significant aspect is whether the decree will be deemed as joint and indivisible or joint and severable/separable.

The Concept of The Joint and Indivisible vs. The Joint and Severable decrees: Dwelling greatly on the earlier landmark decisions especially The Joint and Severable Cases: The concept of the joint and severable decrees dwells deeply on the previous landmark judgments, especially the joint and severable cases.

LRs and Others v. Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) v. LRs and Others, the Supreme Court brought forward a set of principles to be applied by courts on when an entire appeal would abate. An appeal also exhausts when the decree is described as being, either joint and indivisible, or, joint and inseverable/inseparable. When that is the case, the continued existence of the appeal would result in conflicting or contradicting decrees over the same subject matter when the parties survive.

The Court once again mentioned that total abatement does not constitute an exhaustive list of circumstances; it is dependent on the facts of the case. The collective aspect of the decree is very important, and not the correlation of the parties. In case the rights claimed are separate and independent, the decree is viewed as a declaration of a number of distinct decrees and the possibility of a partial abatement may exist. but when it would be impracticable or suicidal to apply an apparatus decree to the survivors in the event of the existing final decree against one of the parties whose death has been certified, this whole appeal must abate.

Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC: Presenting one of the important arguments on which the appellants banked was the relevance of Order XLI Rule 4. By this rule, one or more, of a number of plaintiffs or defendants, may appeal against the whole decree, in case it rests on a common ground. The appellants submitted that this rule would enable them to apply to have the entire decree reversed and thus the appeal cannot abate altogether.

Nevertheless, this was explained in the Supreme Court regarding the combination of Order XLI Rule 4 and Order XXII. Order XLI Rule 4 is applicable on

on the filing level of an appeal, which allows one party to dispute the whole decree. However, when there is an appeal, then

that when all the aggrieved parties file the suit in a joint capacity, Order XLI Rule 4 is not available. Order XXII, in its turn, acts

when there is an appeal pending and requires replacement of legal representatives. The Court emphasized that the cited provisions do not contradict one another as they work at different levels.

The Court pointed out that when both parties file an appeal, and one of the parties to that appeal passes away, his appeal lapses in the absence of legal representatives joining the appeal. Surviving appellants are then not in a position to use Order XLI Rule 4 to sustain the whole appeal should it lead to a conflicting decree.

In conclusion and under the ruling of the Court, it can be said that ACP established a special relationship but the relationship has since ended as stated by the court.

The circumstance in this case is that the defendants (Suresh Chandra and ram Babu) had made a joint interest in the suit property against their father and also filed a joint written statement. The ordinance against them was also collective and united. Thus, allowing the appeal of the surviving appellant (legal heirs of Suresh Chandra) would lead to the irreconcilable and contradictory decrees in same property with the decree against Ram Babu (with appeal abated).

Agreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court said that no good reason was served upon them to excuse such a major lapse in changing the legal representatives of Ram Babu. Therefore, his popularity faded. Considering the combined form of the decree and the possible ambivalence of its results, the whole second appeal was found as having abated. The appeals, made by the Court, did not hold much merit and those were struck down and the Court also reaffirmed the notion that procedural omissions, persuasively relating to abatement in instances of joint and indivisible decrees may very well be fatal to the whole legal proceeding.