Deliberate falsehood regarding knowledge of a defendant’s death precludes setting aside abatement and condoning inordinate delay.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) instituted S.C. Suit No. 68 of 1987 seeking a declaration of 2/3rd undivided share in a Pali Hill property

Defendant No. 1 (D1) passed away on October 29, 1990

Although the Appellant acknowledged D1’s death and sought to implead his heirs in a separate 1980 suit via an application dated April 12, 1991, he failed to take similar steps in the 1987 suit for over 24 years

In 2015, the Appellant filed Chamber Summons No. 701 of 2015 to set aside the abatement and condone the delay, claiming he only learned of D1’s death in 2011/2012

The Trial Court dismissed the application on September 13, 2019, finding the Appellant had made false statements on oath regarding his knowledge of the death

The Appellant challenged this dismissal, citing his 13-year incarceration in Tihar Jail (1998–2011) and the duty of the advocate under Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC to inform the court of a party's death

1. Whether the suit stood abated due to the Appellant's failure to implead legal representatives within the statutory period despite prior knowledge of the death

2. Whether the Appellant established "sufficient cause" for condoning a 24-year delay in seeking to set aside the abatement

3. Whether the protection of Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC applies when the Plaintiff has independent knowledge of the Defendant's demise

The Court applied Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC, which mandates the substitution of legal heirs within the period prescribed by law to prevent suit abatement

Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribe 90 days for impleadment and 60 days to set aside abatement, respectively

The Court relied on S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, establishing that a party approaching the court with "unclean hands" or false statements is disentitled to relief

Regarding delay, the Court applied Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, holding that "sufficient cause" must be demonstrated through a bona fide and satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay

Interpreting Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC, the Court cited Binod Pathak v. Shankar Choudhary and Om Prakash Gupta v. Satish Chandra, ruling that the pleader’s duty to inform the court is inconsequential if the opposing party already possesses knowledge of the death

The Court found the Appellant’s claim of learning about D1’s death only in 2011/2012 to be "ex facie false" given his 1991 affidavit in a parallel proceeding acknowledging the same death

By making a deliberate false statement on oath, the Appellant failed the threshold of equity required for discretionary relief

The Court rejected the argument regarding Order XXII Rule 10A, noting that the legislative intent of the rule is to prevent procedural injustice where a death is unknown; it cannot be used as a shield by a party who already has full knowledge of the demise and the identity of the heirs

The 24-year delay remained "wholly unexplained," as the Appellant’s incarceration did not account for the periods of inaction before 1998 or after 2011

The Court further noted the Appellant's lack of diligence, highlighted by his deletion of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without impleading their heirs, and his false claim that the Trial Court had granted him liberty to file a fresh application when the 2013 Chamber Summons was disposed of

The Court held that the Appellant’s conduct in suppressing material facts and reiterating false pleas for seven years of appellate litigation warranted exemplary costs

Consequently, the High Court increased the costs from the Trial Court's Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, payable to the Respondents within 30 days

All pending interim applications were disposed of, and previous interim orders were vacated