Duty Of Counsel To Report Litigant's Death In Ongoing Litigation Under CPC: J&K&L High Court
The defendant passed away in March 2016 after submitting a written statement. However, the counsel for the deceased party only brought the death on record in October 2016.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that, it is the responsibility of the counsel representing the deceased party to inform the court about the litigant's death during the ongoing suit.
The Court emphasized that for the purpose of calculating the limitation period to set aside the abatement of a suit, the date when the death of a litigant is officially recorded in court records should be considered.
The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendant passed away in March 2016 after submitting a written statement. However, the counsel for the deceased party only brought the death on record in October 2016. Following this, the plaintiff filed an application to set aside the abatement and bring the defendant’s legal heirs onto the record. This application, along with a request for condonation of delay, was allowed by the trial court but was subsequently challenged in the High Court.
A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti held, “In matter of reporting death of a litigant in an ongoing litigation a duty is cast upon the counsel representing a given litigant demising to apprise the court about his/her death in terms of Order 22 Rule 10-A Code of Civil Procedure Svt., 1977 as it was then and now the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.”
Advocate PS Ahmad appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate M. Sultan appeared for the Respondents.
The Court observed that although the petitioner claimed the respondent (the plaintiff) knew of the defendant's death, as they were paternal cousins and neighbors, the official record of the death was made only after five months, when the counsel for the deceased party appeared before the court. The court further clarified that there was no delay in the respondent's application to set aside the abatement, as it was filed promptly after the death was officially recorded in the court’s records.
The Court also noted that the revision petition in this case had delayed the trial court proceedings for six years. Therefore, it directed the trial court to expedite the civil suit's adjudication and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The High Court ruled that the timeline for setting aside the abatement should be calculated from the date the death was officially recorded. The Court found no delay in the plaintiff's filing of the application, as it was made immediately after the death was acknowledged in court records. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the trial court was instructed to proceed with the timely disposal of the suit.
Cause Title: Abdul Rashid Dar & Ors. v. Muzaffer Ahmad Dar & Ors.
