A delayed substitution application requires setting aside abatement and condoning delay.

The deceased father of the respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed on 28 February 2023.

He appealed in R.A. No. 16/2023 and died on 4 April 2024.

His legal heirs sought to be brought on record under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC; an earlier application was dismissed, and they filed a further application on 16 June 2025, which the First Appellate Court allowed on 18 August 2025.

The petitioners challenged that order, contending that no application to set aside abatement under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC or application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay had been filed.

Whether the First Appellate Court could allow the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC without an application to set aside abatement under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and an application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Whether the order allowing the legal heirs to come on record required interference for failure to consider the applicability of those provisions.

Order XXII Rule 3 CPC provides for bringing the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant on record.

Where an appeal has abated, Order XXII Rule 9 CPC governs setting aside the abatement, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application seeking condonation of delay.

Relying on Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, the Court reiterated that these provisions must be given effect and cannot be rendered redundant by an unduly liberal approach.

The sole appellant died on 4 April 2024, while the application to bring his legal heirs on record was filed on 16 June 2025; the Court treated the delay as established and the appeal as having abated.

Because the respondents had filed neither an application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC to set aside abatement nor an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay, the Appellate Court could not properly consider the Order XXII Rule 3 application in isolation.

Its order contained no discussion of the relevant provisions, warranting interference and reconsideration in accordance with law.

It remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court to reconsider that application afresh and pass orders in accordance with law within one month of receiving the High Court’s order.

The judgment refers to the impugned order as dated 18 August 2025 in the body, but the operative portion records 8 August 2025.