In Brief
A property title dispute in Bihar (originating in 1984) saw the trial court dismiss the plaintiffs' suit, but the first appellate court reversed this and decreed in their favour. The defendants appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the suit on finding that several respondents had died during the appeal without their heirs being substituted on record, causing the appeal to abate. The Supreme Court held that while Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC governs substitution, Rule 10A—which mandates pleaders inform courts of clients' deaths—is mandatory and salutary. The Court applied the maxim that no one can benefit from their own wrong, rejecting the defendants' attempt to exploit their pleader's mala fide silence about deaths. It remanded the case for fresh hearing, directing the High Court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to set aside abatement and bring legal heirs on record if the decree is truly joint and indivisible.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.