Introduction
Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), plays a pivotal role in civil litigation in India. It addresses the procedural framework for the abatement and survival of suits in cases of death, marriage, and insolvency of parties involved.
Key Provisions of Order 22
- Automatic Abatement (Rule 1): A suit automatically abates upon the death of a sole plaintiff or defendant unless the legal right involved survives with their legal representatives.
- Involving Legal Representatives (Rule 3): The court may direct that legal representatives of a deceased party be brought on record, ensuring continuity of the legal process.
- Time Constraints (Rule 4): Legal representatives must apply for substitution within 90 days of the party’s death, subject to court’s discretion for extension.
- Marriage of a Female Party (Rule 8): A suit involving a female plaintiff may abate due to her marriage, depending on the nature of the suit and the survival of the right to sue.
- Insolvency of a Party (Rule 11): Suits may proceed against the insolvent party’s estate through an official assignee or receiver.
Survival of Suits
- General Principle (Rule 22): Certain suits, such as those involving property recovery, do not abate due to death or marriage.
- Specific Performance (Rule 23): Suits for specific performance of contracts typically continue with legal representatives.
Procedural Aspects
- Substitution Process (Rules 24-25): Legal representatives must apply for substitution with supporting affidavits, and the court requires notice to these representatives before deciding on substitution.
- Court’s Powers (Rules 26-27): The court may dismiss a suit for failure to apply for substitution within specified time or set aside an abatement/dismissal under certain conditions.
Special Considerations
- Abated Suits (Rule 28): The court may allow continuation of an entirely abated suit with legal representatives.
- Appeals (Rule 29): Principles of Order 22 also apply to appeals.
- Relation to Other Laws (Rule 30): Order 22 operates without prejudice to other laws concerning abatement and survival.
Practical Implications
Legal practitioners must be vigilant in recognizing instances where Order 22 is applicable. Timely actions, proper notice, and effective communication are crucial for the smooth progression of suits under these circumstances.
A thorough understanding of Order 22 is essential for navigating the complexities of civil litigation in India, particularly in ensuring justice in cases affected by death, marriage, or insolvency of parties.
| Case Name | Year | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali | 2020 | Challenged a Gujarat High Court judgment regarding the limitation period under Rule 11 (d), Order 7 of CPC, related to a land sale dispute. |
| Manish Kumar v. Union Of India | 2021 | Examined the interplay of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in a case concerning amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. |
| H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy | 2021 | Involved a mortgagee and auction purchaser dispute, addressing Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC; the Supreme Court found the High Court’s quashing of the sale and consent decree as unjustified. |
| Rahul S Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors. | 2021 | Directed for speedy enforcement proceedings in a property dispute, highlighting the court’s responsibilities in enforcement and decree execution. |
| Virender Singh v. the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited | 2021 | Discussed the maintainability of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the context of disciplinary inquiries or Show Cause Notices. |
| Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur | 2021 | Dealt with the acceptability of delay in filing a written statement under Order 8 of CPC; the Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff’s application to remove the defendant’s late statement. |
| Narayanee v. S. Karthik | 2021 | Focused on a divorce proceeding, considering the implications of Order 8I Rule 5(1) and Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC on the acceptance of allegations when a party fails to participate in proceedings. |
| Prabha Surana v. Jaideep Halwasiya | 2021 | Highlighted the difference between temporary injunction (Order 39 Rule 1) and attachment before judgment (Order 38 Rule 5) in CPC, in a case concerning the protection of disputed property. |
| Arvind Jeram Kotecha v. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha | 2020 | Addressed the enforceability of foreign judgments under Section 13 of CPC; the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal for not meeting the exceptions under Section 13. |
This table provides a comprehensive overview of significant cases relating to Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reflecting a range of issues from property disputes to procedural aspects in civil litigation.
