Legal Review and Analysis of Phool Singh vs Randheer Singh & Ors 2025 INSC 1492

Case Synopsis

Phool Singh vs Randheer Singh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1492)

Synopsis: The Supreme Court provided a crucial jurisprudential clarification, holding that the abatement of a case due to the death of a party is confined to that individual alone and does not extinguish the entire proceeding against surviving contesting respondents, thereby prioritizing substantive adjudication over procedural technicality.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Phool Singh versus Randheer Singh & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1492
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: December 17, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily engages with the following legal provisions:

• Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Governs the abatement of suits and the procedure for substitution of legal representatives upon the death of a party.

• Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC: Provides the procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree.

• Inherent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Exercised via Special Leave Petition to correct a substantial error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court.

3. Basic Judgment Details

Facts of the Case
The appellant, Phool Singh, filed a civil revision petition in the High Court challenging the dismissal of his application to set aside an ex parte decree. The revision had three respondents: Randheer Singh (first respondent and plaintiff in the original suit), Aman Singh (second respondent), and Kallu @ Kishan Singh (third respondent and appellant's brother). The second respondent, Aman Singh, died on October 26, 2017. His death was formally intimated to the Court via an affidavit (Annexure P-3) on April 20, 2022. However, the application to implead his legal heirs, along with applications to set aside the abatement and condone the delay, was filed only on February 27, 2024. The High Court dismissed the entire civil revision petition as having abated due to this gross delay in substituting the deceased party.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the entire civil revision petition as abated due to the failure to implead the legal heirs of one deceased respondent within time?

2. Whether the abatement of the revision against the deceased second respondent automatically leads to the abatement of the entire petition, especially when the contesting first respondent (against whom the revision survived) was still on record?

Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a clear error. The core reasoning is as follows:

• The principle of abatement is enshrined in Order XXII of the CPC. The death of a party leads to the abatement of the proceeding only against that deceased party, not against other living contesting parties.

• In this case, the substantive contest in the revision was between the appellant (Phool Singh) and the first respondent (Randheer Singh). The deceased second respondent was a proforma party in the context of the revision's core challenge.

• Therefore, even if the revision abated as against the deceased second respondent due to non-substitution, it could and should have proceeded against the first respondent. The High Court's order to dismiss the petition in toto was legally unsustainable.

• The Court also noted that the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent themselves were desirous of being impleaded and agitating their cause. In the interest of proper and complete adjudication of all issues, and despite acknowledging the appellant's procedural laxity, the Supreme Court found it imperative to restore the revision and permit the impleadment of the legal heirs.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment

Title: Clarifying the Scope of Abatement: Death of a Party Does Not Necrotize the Entire Proceedings

Main Issue and Judgment's Core
The core issue was the misinterpretation and misapplication of the law on abatement. The judgment rectifies the erroneous notion that the failure to substitute one deceased respondent sounds a death knell for the entire legal proceeding.

The Supreme Court addressed this by reiterating and applying the fundamental doctrine that abatement is party-specific. The Court emphasized a critical distinction:

1. Abatement Against a Deceased Party: This is a consequence of procedural default under Order XXII, CPC.

2. Survival of Proceedings Against Other Parties: The cause of action and the lis against other living contesting respondents remain alive and must be adjudicated on merits.

In-Depth Analysis
This judgment is a restatement of foundational procedural law aimed at preventing a miscarriage of justice. The High Court's order was a classic case of letting a technical and procedural lapse (delayed substitution) override substantive rights and the merits of the case. By dismissing the entire petition, the High Court barred the appellant from pursuing his grievance against the primary contesting respondent.

The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the principle that procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its masters. While not condoning the appellant's delay, the Court prioritized the need for a "proper adjudication of the issue" on merits. The ruling safeguards against the misuse of abatement provisions to secure a quick, unmerited termination of litigation. It reinforces that courts must examine whether the deceased person was a necessary party for the adjudication of the surviving dispute. Here, since the contest survived with the first respondent, the revision should have continued.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court

• Allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

• Held that the civil revision petition was wrongly dismissed as having abated in its entirety.

• Restored the civil revision petition to the file of the High Court.

• Permitted the impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent (Aman Singh) to enable them to agitate their cause.

• Directed all parties to appear before the High Court on January 23, 2026, for the revision to be considered on its own merits.

6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In Phool Singh vs Randheer Singh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1492), on what primary ground did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the civil revision?

A) The High Court failed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

B) The High Court incorrectly concluded that the death of one respondent leads to the abatement of the entire petition against all parties.

C) The High Court did not grant an opportunity for mediation.

D) The High Court erred on the factual matrix of the compromise decree.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's ruling in the aforementioned case, what is the fate of a civil proceeding if one of several respondents dies and his legal heirs are not impleaded in time?

A) The entire suit or proceeding stands abated and must be dismissed.

B) The proceeding abates only against the deceased respondent and continues against the other contesting respondents.

C) The legal heirs are automatically deemed to be parties.

D) The court must wait indefinitely for the substitution application.