The Supreme Court has held that the Civil Revision Petition cannot be dismissed as abated merely because the legal heirs of one of the respondents was not impleaded within time after the death of that respondent.

The Apex Court was considering a civil matter where a revision was dismissed as abated.

The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “What is pertinent is that merely because the second respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and the revision stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against the other respondents. The High Court had clearly erred in dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because the legal heirs of one of the respondents was not impleaded within time after the death of that respondent. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court impugned herein.”

“Despite laxity of the appellant, the revision petitioner, in not having impleaded the legal heirs immediately after the death of the second respondent, who was his uncle, the legal heirs of the second respondent are entitled to agitate their cause”, it added.

Advocate Amit Lahoti represented the Appellant while AOR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The predecessors of the parties were one Rajdhar Singh, whose children were the first respondent, the deceased second respondent and the father of the appellant. The first respondent filed a suit against the deceased second respondent and the brother of the appellant, who was the nephew. A settlement was entered into and a compromise decree was passed. The terms of the compromise decree having not worked out, the first respondent filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge. There was a remand made upon which the Civil Judge passed a judgment.

The appellant, the nephew of the first respondent and the deceased second respondent, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which stood dismissed. A civil miscellaneous appeal was rejected, against which the revision was filed. In the revision, the parties were the first respondent, the plaintiff, the second respondent, who later died. A civil revision, in which there were three respondents, was dismissed as abated, since the application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent was found to be grossly belated.

Arguments

It was the appellants’ case that a mistake did occur on the part of the counsel for the appellant, insofar as not having taken steps to implead the legal heirs at the proper time. It was submitted that even if the revision petition was abated as against the second respondent, there was no cause to dismiss the petition as such, since the contesting party was the first respondent, against whom the revision survived.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the substantial delay in filing the application for impleadment, along with the application to set aside abatement and condonation of delay occasioned in filing both the above applications.

The Bench was of the view that civil revision cannot stand abated against the other respondents merely because the second respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded. It was also noticed that the legal heirs had filed an appeal from the impugned order and were also desirous of appearing in the civil revision and agitating their cause.

“In the overall circumstances, as seen from the above, we are convinced that not only should the civil revision be restored, the legal heirs of the second respondent should also be permitted to be impleaded”, it held.

Thus, allowing the appeals, the Bench directed the parties to appear before the High Court. “The revision shall be considered on its own merits”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Phool Singh v. Randheer Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1492)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Amit Lahoti, Vaibhav Maheshwari, AOR Sadhana Sandhu, Advocates Shikha Sandhu, Neelima Singh Thakur, Sarthak Chaturvedi

Respondent: AOR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocates Ibad Mushtaq, Akanksha Rai, Gurneet Kaur, AOR Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocates Atul Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Khare, Kirti Sharma, Suchita Kumari, Shweta Bhardwaj

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Ahsanuddin AmaahJustice Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.