Appeal does not abate where deceased's estate is sufficiently represented by surviving co-party legal heirs.

The petitioner filed a review petition against a judgment dated 21-02-2019 passed in S.A. No. 129/2002, which had allowed the respondents' (plaintiffs') appeal and restored the trial court's decree

During the pendency of the second appeal, Plaintiff No. 1 (Pratap Singh Rathiya) died on 24-09-2009, and Defendant No. 1 (Madhusudan) died on 06-11-2013

Despite these deaths, the respective counsels failed to inform the Court as required under Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC

The petitioner (wife of Defendant No. 1) contended that since both parties died prior to the judgment, the appeal had abated, and the resulting decree was a nullity

1. Whether the failure of counsel to inform the Court of a party's death under Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC results in the automatic abatement of the proceedings

2. Whether the second appeal abated and the decree became a nullity when the estates of the deceased parties were represented by their surviving brothers (Class II heirs) who were already parties to the suit

The Court applied Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC, noting that the duty of a lawyer to inform the court of a client's death is directory, as no penalty for non-compliance is contemplated

It further applied Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, recognizing brothers as Class II heirs

The primary legal principle relied upon was the doctrine of "substantial representation," as established by the Supreme Court in Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick, which holds that an appeal does not abate if the estate of the deceased is sufficiently represented by other heirs already on record

This was reinforced by Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, which clarified that non-substitution of legal representatives does not abate a suit if the interest is fully and substantially represented by other defendants jointly defending the suit

The Court reasoned that although there was a procedural lapse under Order 22 Rule 10A, the second appeal did not abate because the legal interests of the deceased were effectively protected

Regarding Defendant No. 1, his brothers (Defendants No. 2 and 3) were already on record; since they were Class II heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and were jointly defending a common interest, they "effectively represented" his estate

Similarly, the estate of Plaintiff No. 1 was sufficiently represented by his three brothers (Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4), who were also Class II heirs and parties to the appeal

Applying the precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court found that when surviving co-parties share the same interest and legal status as the deceased, the "estate is fully and substantially represented," preventing abatement

Consequently, there was no error apparent on the face of the record

Therefore, the decree passed was not a nullity

The Court dismissed the review petition and directed the petitioner to pay costs of ₹2,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority