Courts should strictly internalize abatement but exercise liberal judicial discretion when considering applications to set it aside.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed First Appeal No. 117/2020 challenging a 2017 Land Acquisition Reference Court judgment.

During the pendency of the appeal, the sole respondent, Ramadhar, died on January 23, 2020.

The State failed to substitute his legal representatives (LRs) within the limitation period, leading to the automatic abatement of the appeal on September 7, 2022.

The State filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) seeking to condone the delay and set aside the abatement, citing administrative hurdles (transfer of land jurisdiction between PWD sub-divisions) and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the delay in receiving information about the death.

1. Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement of the First Appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Whether the abatement of the appeal should be set aside and the matter restored to its original position.

The Court applied Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC regarding the setting aside of abatement.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s suo moto extension of limitation due to COVID-19 (Order dated 10.01.2022 in SMWP No. 3/2020), which excluded the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022.

Crucially, it followed the precedent in Om Prakash Gupta v. Satish Chandra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 291), which mandates a "justice-oriented approach" over technicalities, holding that a prayer for substitution can be construed as a prayer for setting aside abatement.

It distinguished the restrictive approach in State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612), noting the present case offered sufficient cause.

The Court observed that while the State provided two different justifications (administrative restructuring and COVID-19), they were not contradictory.

The Court noted that the respondent died just before the pandemic lockdown, and the period of limitation was legally suspended by the Supreme Court’s suo moto orders during the pandemic years.

Applying the principle from Om Prakash Gupta, the Court emphasized that while abatement rules are strictly construed, judicial discretion to set aside abatement should be exercised "leniently" to ensure a lis is determined on merits rather than technicalities.

Since no interim relief was currently in favor of the State, the Court reasoned that the respondents faced no prejudice by the restoration of the appeal.

First Appeal No. 117/2020 was restored to its original position.

The Court dismissed the application for substitution (I.A. No. 11313/2022) as withdrawn with a direction to refile it within the restored First Appeal within seven days.

The MCC was disposed of accordingly.