Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1492
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos……..………….of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025)
Phool Singh
…Appellant
Versus
Randheer Singh & Ors.
…Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. A civil revision, in which there were three respondents,
was dismissed as abated, since the application to implead the
legal heirs of the deceased second respondent was found to be
filed grossly belated.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that true,
a mistake occurred on the part of the counsel for the appellant,
insofar as not having taken steps to implead the legal heirs at
the proper time. The intimation of the death of the second
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.23
15:24:03 IST
Reason:
respondent and the details of the legal heirs were brought on
Page 1 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
record by the counsel for the deceased respondent as early as
in 2022, evident from Annexure P-3, indicating the death having
occurred on 26.10.2017. The application to implead the legal
heirs along with the application to set aside the abatement and
condonation of delay occasioned was filed only on 27.02.2024.
Even if the revision petition is abated as against the second
respondent, there is no cause to dismiss the petition as such,
since the contesting party was the first respondent, against
whom the revision survives.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other
hand, submits that the entire process is a dilatory tactic,
especially, since the direct brother of the appellant was in the
party array and the deceased respondent is his uncle. There is
no bona fides, even in the submission of the appellant that he
came to know of the death only when an affidavit with the
details of the legal heirs and intimating the death of the second
respondent was brought on record.
5. Immediately we have to notice that the contesting
respondent is also the uncle of the appellant. On facts, suffice it
Page 2 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
to notice that the predecessors of the parties were one Rajdhar
Singh whose children were the first respondent, the deceased
second respondent and the father of the appellant herein. The
first respondent filed a suit against the deceased second
respondent and the brother of the appellant who was the
nephew. A settlement was entered into on 13.05.1996 and a
compromise decree was passed. The terms of the compromise
decree having not worked out, the first respondent filed an
appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Sironj, Vidisha,
Madhya Pradesh. There was a remand made upon which the
learned Civil Judge passed a judgment and decree on
28.02.2003.
6. The appellant herein, the nephew of the first respondent
herein and the deceased second respondent filed an
application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9
1
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which stood
dismissed. A civil miscellaneous appeal filed as MCA No.02-
02/2007 was rejected on 13.02.2012 against which the revision
1
for short, the CPC
Page 3 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
was filed. In the revision, the parties were the first respondent-
Randheer Singh, the plaintiff, the second respondent-Aman
Singh, who later died, both of whom were sons of Rajdhar Singh
and the third respondent-Kallu @ Kishan Singh, the brother of
the appellant. The appellant Phool Singh is also the son of Ratan
Singh.
7. The second respondent in the revision died on 26.10.2017
which was brought to the notice of the Court by Annexure P-3
dated 20.04.2022. True, there was substantial delay in filing the
application for impleadment along with the application to set
aside abatement and condonation of delay occasioned in filing
of both the above applications.
8. What is pertinent is that merely because the second
respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and the revision
stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against
the other respondents. The High Court had clearly erred in
dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because
the legal heirs of one of the respondents was not impleaded
within time after the death of that respondent. In such
Page 4 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court
impugned herein.
9. Before us, the legal heirs of the second respondent in the
civil revision petition; impleaded in this appeal as an abundant
caution, also appears through a learned Counsel. It is stated by
the learned counsel that the legal heirs too have filed an appeal
from the impugned order in the above case. The legal heirs also
are desirous of appearing in the civil revision and agitating
their cause.
10. In the overall circumstances, as seen from the above, we
are convinced that not only should the civil revision be
restored, the legal heirs of the second respondent should also
be permitted to be impleaded.
11. We make this order to ensure that there is a proper
adjudication of the issue. Despite laxity of the appellant, the
revision petitioner, in not having impleaded the legal heirs
immediately after the death of the second respondent, who was
his uncle, the legal heirs of the second respondent are entitled
to agitate their cause.
Page 5 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
12. The appeals are allowed with the above directions, and
the parties are directed to appear before the High Court on
23.01.2026. The revision shall be considered on its own merits.
13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….………….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 17, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos……..………….of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025)
Phool Singh
…Appellant
Versus
Randheer Singh & Ors.
…Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. A civil revision, in which there were three respondents,
was dismissed as abated, since the application to implead the
legal heirs of the deceased second respondent was found to be
filed grossly belated.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that true,
a mistake occurred on the part of the counsel for the appellant,
insofar as not having taken steps to implead the legal heirs at
the proper time. The intimation of the death of the second
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.23
15:24:03 IST
Reason:
respondent and the details of the legal heirs were brought on
Page 1 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
record by the counsel for the deceased respondent as early as
in 2022, evident from Annexure P-3, indicating the death having
occurred on 26.10.2017. The application to implead the legal
heirs along with the application to set aside the abatement and
condonation of delay occasioned was filed only on 27.02.2024.
Even if the revision petition is abated as against the second
respondent, there is no cause to dismiss the petition as such,
since the contesting party was the first respondent, against
whom the revision survives.
4. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other
hand, submits that the entire process is a dilatory tactic,
especially, since the direct brother of the appellant was in the
party array and the deceased respondent is his uncle. There is
no bona fides, even in the submission of the appellant that he
came to know of the death only when an affidavit with the
details of the legal heirs and intimating the death of the second
respondent was brought on record.
5. Immediately we have to notice that the contesting
respondent is also the uncle of the appellant. On facts, suffice it
Page 2 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
to notice that the predecessors of the parties were one Rajdhar
Singh whose children were the first respondent, the deceased
second respondent and the father of the appellant herein. The
first respondent filed a suit against the deceased second
respondent and the brother of the appellant who was the
nephew. A settlement was entered into on 13.05.1996 and a
compromise decree was passed. The terms of the compromise
decree having not worked out, the first respondent filed an
appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Sironj, Vidisha,
Madhya Pradesh. There was a remand made upon which the
learned Civil Judge passed a judgment and decree on
28.02.2003.
6. The appellant herein, the nephew of the first respondent
herein and the deceased second respondent filed an
application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9
1
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which stood
dismissed. A civil miscellaneous appeal filed as MCA No.02-
02/2007 was rejected on 13.02.2012 against which the revision
1
for short, the CPC
Page 3 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
was filed. In the revision, the parties were the first respondent-
Randheer Singh, the plaintiff, the second respondent-Aman
Singh, who later died, both of whom were sons of Rajdhar Singh
and the third respondent-Kallu @ Kishan Singh, the brother of
the appellant. The appellant Phool Singh is also the son of Ratan
Singh.
7. The second respondent in the revision died on 26.10.2017
which was brought to the notice of the Court by Annexure P-3
dated 20.04.2022. True, there was substantial delay in filing the
application for impleadment along with the application to set
aside abatement and condonation of delay occasioned in filing
of both the above applications.
8. What is pertinent is that merely because the second
respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and the revision
stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against
the other respondents. The High Court had clearly erred in
dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because
the legal heirs of one of the respondents was not impleaded
within time after the death of that respondent. In such
Page 4 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court
impugned herein.
9. Before us, the legal heirs of the second respondent in the
civil revision petition; impleaded in this appeal as an abundant
caution, also appears through a learned Counsel. It is stated by
the learned counsel that the legal heirs too have filed an appeal
from the impugned order in the above case. The legal heirs also
are desirous of appearing in the civil revision and agitating
their cause.
10. In the overall circumstances, as seen from the above, we
are convinced that not only should the civil revision be
restored, the legal heirs of the second respondent should also
be permitted to be impleaded.
11. We make this order to ensure that there is a proper
adjudication of the issue. Despite laxity of the appellant, the
revision petitioner, in not having impleaded the legal heirs
immediately after the death of the second respondent, who was
his uncle, the legal heirs of the second respondent are entitled
to agitate their cause.
Page 5 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025
12. The appeals are allowed with the above directions, and
the parties are directed to appear before the High Court on
23.01.2026. The revision shall be considered on its own merits.
13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….………….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 17, 2025.
Page 6 of 6
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025