I. Case Identification & Vitals
1. Court: Supreme Court of India
2. Case Title: Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Parasram & Ors.
3. Document Type and Date of Judgment: Judgment, July 10, 2025
4. Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4185 of 2009
5. SCR Citation: NA
6. Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 804
7. Disposal Nature: Appeal Dismissed
8. Case Type: Civil Appeal
9. Law Applicable: Civil Procedure Code, Law of Abatement, Property Law
10. Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice P.S. Narasimha
- Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar
11. Judgment Authored by: Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar*
II. Summaries & Core Issues
12. Headnote:
In Suresh Chandra (Deceased) vs. Parasram, the Supreme Court dealt with the legal implications of failing to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased co-appellant in a second appeal. The High Court had dismissed the appeal due to abatement caused by non-substitution. The Court rejected the appellants’ plea for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of diligent procedural conduct. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order and reinforcing procedural rigour in civil appeals.
13. Short Summary:
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a civil appeal due to the appellants’ delay in substituting legal heirs of a deceased co-appellant, emphasizing the necessity of procedural compliance.
14. Issue for Consideration:
Whether the appeal abated wholly or partially due to the death of one of the appellants and the delay in substitution of his legal representatives.
III. Procedural & Factual Background
15. Case Start Date: NA
16. Case Arising From:
The appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff (Parasram) seeking declaration of title and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court reversed the decision. The second appeal was filed in the High Court by the defendants, which was dismissed due to abatement of one appellant’s claim.
17. Background and Facts:
Parasram filed a suit claiming ownership of a house, asserting ancestral title through Tej Singh. The defendants claimed title through Gokul Prasad. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court granted relief to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the second appeal, appellant Ram Babu died, and his legal representatives were not substituted within the prescribed time.
18. Timeline:
- Original suit filed: 1983 (renumbered in 1997)
- Trial Court dismissed suit: Date NA
- First Appellate Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff
- High Court appeal filed by defendants
- Ram Babu (co-appellant) died: August 19, 2015
- Substitution applications filed: 2022
- High Court dismissed applications: August 4, 2022
- Supreme Court judgment: July 10, 2025
19. Parties Involved:
- Appellants: Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs, Ram Babu (Deceased) through LRs
- Respondents: Parasram and others
20. Procedural History:
- Trial Court: Dismissed suit
- First Appellate Court: Decreed suit in favour of plaintiff
- High Court: Dismissed appeal due to abatement caused by non-substitution
- Supreme Court: Upheld High Court’s decision
IV. Legal Analysis & Arguments
21. Issues Framed: Not Applicable
22. Areas of Debate:
- Whether an appeal abates entirely if one of multiple appellants dies and substitution is not timely.
- Whether Order XLI Rule 4 CPC allows surviving appellants to continue appeal on common grounds.
23. Cases Cited by Petitioner/Appellant: NA
24. Cases Cited by Respondent/Defendant: NA
25. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:
- Code of Civil Procedure
- Order XXII Rule 3: Procedure when one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives
- Order XLI Rule 4: Appeal by one of several plaintiffs or defendants
- Context: Applied to determine whether the appeal could survive despite abatement
26. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
27. Literature Citation: NA
28. Appearances for Parties:
- Advocates: Not specified in the judgment
- Witnesses: NA
- Other Persons: NA
29. Prayer: To set aside the High Court’s order of dismissal due to abatement and decide the appeal on merits
30. Evidence & Findings:
- No evidentiary exhibits discussed in Supreme Court ruling
31. Petitioner/Appellant Arguments:
- Delay in substitution was not deliberate and due to bonafide mistake
- Appeal should not abate wholly since cause of action survives
- Order XLI Rule 4 CPC allows appeal to continue
32. Respondent/Defendant Arguments:
- Gross delay of over 6 years is inexcusable
- Entire appeal abates due to failure to substitute legal heirs of one appellant
- High Court correctly applied CPC provisions
V. Judgment & Conclusion
33. Ratio Decidendi:
- Substitution of legal heirs is mandatory when an appellant dies during appeal
- Delay of over six years without sufficient cause cannot be condoned
- Order XLI Rule 4 CPC not applicable when the decree is joint and indivisible
34. Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The High Court’s decision dismissing the appeal due to abatement is upheld.
35. Legal Jargons and Maxims:
- Abatement: Termination of proceedings due to procedural lapse such as death of a party
- Substitution: Replacement of deceased party with legal heirs to continue litigation
- Order XLI Rule 4 CPC: Provision allowing some appellants to appeal against entire decree if grounds are common
36. Exhibits: []
VI. Key Learnings for Law Students and Legal Professionals
This judgment serves as a critical reminder on the procedural rigour required in appellate litigation. It emphasizes that failure to substitute legal representatives of deceased parties can lead to dismissal of entire appeals, and that Order XLI Rule 4 CPC has limited scope in such cases involving joint decrees.
Important Keywords for the Judgment: Suresh Chandra vs Parasram
Appeal abatement Supreme Court, legal heirs substitution civil appeal, Suresh Chandra vs Parasram judgment, Order XLI Rule 4 CPC explained, Supreme Court abatement case 2025, LRs substitution procedural default, delay condonation rejected Supreme Court, joint decree appeal consequences, civil appeal dismissed on abatement, High Court order upheld SC.
Tags: appeal abatement case, Suresh Chandra vs Parasram, Supreme Court LRs substitution, 2025 INSC 804, civil appeal procedural rules, Code of Civil Procedure SC ruling, substitution delay legal impact, Order XLI Rule 4 limitation, SC judgment civil abatement, procedural default in appeals.