Summary of the Judgment Binod Pathak & Ors. vs. Shankar Choudhary & Ors., 2025 INSC 842

Citation: Binod Pathak & Ors. vs. Shankar Choudhary & Ors., 2025 INSC 842
Related Law: Order XXII, Rules 1, 2, 4, and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India addressed a civil appeal arising from a dispute over land ownership in Bihar. The core issue revolved around the abatement of proceedings due to the non-substitution of legal representatives of deceased parties and the duty of pleaders under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC.

2. Factual Background

• Original Suit (1984): Plaintiffs (Binod Pathak & Ors.) filed for declaration of title and possession of disputed land. The trial court dismissed the suit in 1989.

• First Appeal (2009): The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

• Second Appeal (High Court, 2014): The High Court set aside the appellate court’s judgment, ruling that the appeal had abated as legal heirs of some deceased defendants were not substituted.

3. Key Legal Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in holding the First Appeal abated due to non-compliance with Order XXII Rule 4 CPC (substitution of legal heirs)?

2. Whether Order XXII Rule 10A CPC (duty of pleaders to inform the court of a party’s death) was violated, and if so, its impact on abatement.

3. Whether the decree was "joint and indivisible," necessitating abatement against all defendants.

4. Supreme Court’s Analysis

A. Violation of Order XXII Rule 10A CPC

• The Court emphasized that the defendants’ pleaders failed to inform the court or the plaintiffs about the death of some defendants during the First Appeal.

• Rule 10A CPC mandates pleaders to notify the court of a client’s death to avoid procedural injustice. Non-compliance undermines the rule’s purpose of ensuring fairness.

B. Legal Maxims Applied

• Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria: No one can benefit from their own wrong. The defendants’ silence about the deaths barred them from claiming abatement.

• Ex injuria ius non oritur: Rights cannot arise from wrongdoing. The Court clarified that abatement is not a "right" but a procedural consequence.

C. Nature of the Decree

• The High Court erroneously assumed the decree was "joint and indivisible" without examining its specifics. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider this issue.

5. Conclusion & Directions

1. Appeal Partly Allowed: The High Court’s judgment was set aside.

2. Remand to High Court: The Second Appeal was restored for fresh hearing.
   If the decree is found "joint and indivisible," the High Court must remand the case to the First Appellate Court to allow substitution of legal heirs.
   If the decree is severable, the High Court shall decide the appeal on merits.

3. Timeline: The High Court was directed to conclude the hearing within three months.

6. Key Takeaways

• Pleader’s Duty: Lawyers must inform the court of a client’s death to prevent unfair abatement.

• Equity Over Technicalities: Courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural lapses.

• Judicial Vigilance: The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in curbing abuse of process.