Specific notice under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC is mandatory; order sheet entries are insufficient to impute knowledge of death.

The original suit (Title Suit No. 11/1994) was filed by Sabiha Naseem and Najma Ismaili (Respondent No. 2) against the Petitioner challenging a Waqf property registration

The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs in 1999

The Petitioner filed a miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree, which was dismissed in 2001

While the Petitioner’s subsequent appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 01/2002) was pending, Respondent No. 2 died on 04.02.2008

Respondent No. 1 informed the appellate court of this death via application on 25.02.2008

On 21.10.2008, the Petitioner filed for substitution of heirs along with a limitation condonation petition

The learned Additional District Judge-IV, Patna, rejected the substitution petition on 16.10.2014, holding that the appeal had abated because the Petitioner’s counsel was present when the death was initially reported and had a duty to read the order sheet

The Petitioner challenged this order, asserting she was a Pardanashin lady and had not been served formal notice of the death

1. Whether the learned appellate court erred in rejecting the substitution petition and declaring abatement by imputing knowledge of the death to the Petitioner through her counsel’s presence in court.

2. Whether the court is or is not mandatorily required to provide notice of a party's death to the opposite party under Order 22 Rule 10-A of the CPC.

The court primarily applied Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which stipulates that when a pleader becomes aware of the death of a party they represent, they must inform the court, and the court "shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party"

The court further observed that the contract between the pleader and the deceased party is deemed to subsist for this specific purpose

The High Court found that the lower court’s reasoning—that the Petitioner’s counsel had a duty to read the order sheet to gain knowledge of the death—ran contrary to the express statutory provisions of the CPC

The court interpreted Order 22 Rule 10-A as casting a mandatory duty upon the Court to provide specific notice of the death to the other party once informed by the pleader

The High Court held that a mere entry in the order sheet does not satisfy the requirement of "notice" under this rule

Consequently, the period of limitation for substitution could not be strictly held against the Petitioner in the absence of such formal notice by the court

The court noted that the lower court failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly, resulting in material irregularity

The court allowed the Petitioner’s substitution application dated 21.10.2008 and directed the learned appellate court to dispose of the long-pending Misc. Appeal No. 01/2002 within three months, given its antiquity

The court concluded that the statutory mandate for the court to give notice of death is specific and essential to prevent the abatement of claims without due process