A judgment rendered without impleading legal representatives of a deceased contesting respondent is a nullity.

The review petitioner sought review and recall under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of the judgment dated 01.04.2024 in First Appeal No. 172 of 2008, by which the High Court had dismissed the appeal of Defendant No. 8, Smt. S.N. Bakshi, and affirmed the trial court’s decree declaring the sale deed dated 11.10.2000 void and granting consequential injunctive reliefs.

The underlying dispute concerned 32 decimal of land forming part of Khasra No. 8, Bagsewania, Bhopal. The review petitioner claimed to have purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2010, to have been in possession since then, and to have obtained mutation in the revenue records on 23.12.2011.

The principal procedural objection was that original respondent No. 1, Majiduddin, died on 08.10.2016 during the pendency of the first appeal. Although an application under Order XXII Rule 10A CPC had allegedly been filed, his legal representatives were not brought on record before the appeal was decided on 01.04.2024.

The petitioner also raised objections concerning the status of the land, expiry of the layout sanction, the plaintiffs’ locus, and the maintainability of the representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

Whether the judgment in the first appeal was rendered without jurisdiction or was otherwise legally unsustainable because the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 were not brought on record before adjudication?

Whether the review petitioner’s asserted purchase, possession, and mutation created grounds for recalling the judgment and restoring the first appeal for rehearing?

Whether the objections relating to the character of the land, the plaintiffs’ locus, and the maintainability of the representative suit required reconsideration in the restored appeal?

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, governing review of judgments; Order XXII CPC, requiring the legal representatives of a deceased party to be brought on record where the right to sue survives; and Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, concerning the court’s intimation of a party’s death.

It relied principally on Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521, which establishes that where a contesting respondent dies during the pendency of an appeal and the right to sue survives, the legal representatives must be impleaded before adjudication; a judgment rendered without them is a nullity.

The Court also considered the principles of natural justice and the petitioner’s claim that his proprietary and possessory interests were affected without an opportunity of hearing.

The Court found that Majiduddin was a contesting respondent who died during the pendency of the first appeal, and that his legal representatives had not been impleaded before the appeal was decided.

Applying the rule in Jaladi Suguna, the Court held that the right to sue survived and that adjudication in the absence of the deceased respondent’s legal representatives constituted a material procedural infirmity going to the root of the case. Consequently, the judgment dated 01.04.2024 was held unsustainable in law.

The Court also noted the review petitioner’s claims arising from his subsequent registered purchase, possession, and alleged non-joinder of a necessary party, but did not determine those issues on merits.

The judgment dated 01.04.2024 in First Appeal No. 172 of 2008 was recalled, and the first appeal was restored to its original number for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The parties were permitted to take appropriate steps for impleading the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1. All contentions on the merits were kept open, and the Court expressly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.