Substitution applications inherently include a prayer for setting aside abatement to ensure substantial justice.

Initially, a civil suit filed by one Munnu resulted in an ex-parte decree against the petitioner on 01.08.2016.

The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside the decree on 15.10.2016.

During these proceedings, the plaintiff Munnu passed away, which was recorded on 28.06.2017.

Within 30 days, one Chandrabhan appeared and was impleaded as a Class-II legal representative.

Later, on 15.02.2018, Respondents 1 to 3 applied for impleadment as Class-I legal representatives (children of the deceased), which the Trial Court allowed on 25.08.2018.

Respondents 1 to 3 then moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3(2) CPC, arguing that the MJC proceedings had abated as no formal application to set aside abatement was filed.

The Trial Court allowed the Order 9 Rule 13 application and restored the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that the proceedings had abated due to the lack of an application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC.

1. Whether the MJC proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC abated because the petitioner failed to file a formal application to set aside abatement within the limitation period.

2. Whether the appearance and impleadment of some legal representatives (Class-II) within 90 days prevents the abatement of the proceedings against subsequent legal representatives (Class-I).

3. Whether an application for substitution can be treated as including an inherent prayer for setting aside abatement.

The Court primarily applied Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 22 Rules 3, 9, and 10A of the CPC.

Counsel is duty-bound to provide the names of legal representatives and that limitation runs from the date of such intimation as per Binod Pathak v. Shankar Choudhary (2025).

A prayer for substitution inherently includes a prayer for setting aside abatement in the interest of justice as held in Om Prakash Gupta alias Lalloowa v. Satish Chandra (2025) and Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003).

The High Court found the Appellate Court's view "unduly harsh" and legally flawed.

It noted that one legal representative (Chandrabhan) had already appeared and been impleaded within the 90-day limitation period following the notice of death.

Consequently, there was no information regarding Class-I heirs until Respondents 1 to 3 voluntarily appeared.

Under Order 22 Rule 10A and the Binod Pathak ruling, the limitation period is linked to the disclosure of the names of the legal heirs; since the heirs themselves moved for impleadment, the petitioner had no reason to file a separate substitution application.

Following the Om Prakash Gupta principle, even if a formal prayer to set aside abatement was absent, such a prayer must be read as inherent in the substitution process.

Since the legal representatives were already on record, the proceedings could not be said to have abated.

The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Appellate Court’s order dated 14.11.2019, restored the order of the Trial Court allowing the Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial as per law.