Wrong citation of law alone does not defeat an otherwise maintainable application.

The suit, filed by the deceased plaintiff for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction, remained pending after his death on 3 August 2016.

Applications to set aside abatement and bring his legal representatives on record were not pressed.

A later impleading application was dismissed, with liberty to file an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC.

The subsequent application, filed under Order XXII Rule 10(2) CPC, sought to bring the first respondent in as a second plaintiff and the second respondent in as a second defendant; the trial court dismissed it but again granted liberty to take appropriate steps under Order XXII CPC.

The defendant challenged the order, contending that the suit had abated and that abatement could only be set aside by following Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and the Limitation Act.

1. Whether the application could be dismissed merely because it invoked an incorrect provision of the CPC, rather than the provision governing substitution of a deceased plaintiff’s legal representatives.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, the trial court’s dismissal of the application with liberty to take appropriate steps under Order XXII CPC should be disturbed.

Order XXII Rule 3 CPC governs the bringing on record of a deceased plaintiff’s legal representatives; Order XXII Rule 9 CPC concerns setting aside abatement.

The Court also considered the principle that merely citing an incorrect provision of law does not, by itself, defeat an otherwise maintainable claim: the court may consider the substance of the relief sought and grant it if permitted by law.

The Court referred to Article 227 of the Constitution as the basis of the revision petition.

No precedent was cited, and the Court did not finally determine whether the abatement should be set aside or whether the proposed parties were entitled to substitution.

The Court accepted that the applicant had repeatedly invoked an incorrect provision despite being given liberty to file an appropriate application, and that this conduct had contributed to delay.

Nevertheless, it considered that the deceased plaintiff’s legal representatives were necessary for effective adjudication and that proceeding without them could lead to further litigation.

It therefore treated the error in the provision cited as insufficient, in the interests of substantial justice, to justify non-suiting the applicant.

The Court left the proper procedural steps and their merits to the trial court.

The petitioner was directed to take appropriate steps before the trial court, in accordance with law, to bring the deceased plaintiff’s legal representatives on record.

The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 in costs to the respondents by 8 October 2026; the order stated that, on non-payment, the application would stand dismissed automatically.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and the matter was listed for reporting compliance on 8 October 2026.