1983 (4) TMI 292 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of the first appeal due to the death of a respondent.
2. Application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives.
3. Dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
4. Competency of the second appeal.
5. Impact of the dismissal of the second appeal on the appeal from the order.
6. Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abatement of the First Appeal:
The original defendants filed an appeal after the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the first appeal, the first respondent died, and no substitution was sought within the prescribed time. Consequently, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal as abated, stating, "the entire appeal has abated."

2. Application for Substitution:
An application for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent was filed, accompanied by an application for condoning the delay. The first appellate court declined to condone the delay and rejected the application for substitution as time-barred, leading to the abatement of the appeal.

3. Dismissal of the Appeal as Time-Barred:
The learned Judge of the first appellate court rejected the application for substitution as time-barred and subsequently dismissed the appeal on contest, which was procedurally incorrect as there was no adjudication on merits.

4. Competency of the Second Appeal:
The original defendants filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court held that the dismissal of the second appeal rendered the appeal from the order infructuous. However, the Supreme Court noted that the second appeal was incompetent since it was an appeal against an order and not a decree.

5. Impact of the Dismissal of the Second Appeal on the Appeal from the Order:
The Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of the second appeal did not impact the appeal from the order. The learned Single Judge had rightly allowed the appeal from the order, condoning the delay, setting aside the abatement, and granting substitution. The decision of the learned Single Judge in the appeal from the order remained "unimpaired, unaffected, and inviolable" by the dismissal of the second appeal.

6. Letters Patent Appeal Against the Decision of the Learned Single Judge:
The original plaintiffs filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court erroneously held that the dismissal of the second appeal rendered the appeal from the order infructuous and allowed the Letters Patent Appeal. The Supreme Court found this conclusion unsustainable and quashed the decision of the Division Bench, restoring the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal, and restored the decision of the learned Single Judge. The procedural errors and misinterpretations by the lower courts were corrected, emphasizing that the appeal from the order was competent and should be considered on its merits. The case was remitted back to the first appellate court for a fresh hearing on the merits.