A fascinating legal dilemma unfolded before the Supreme Court, highlighting a crucial aspect of legal proceedings. The case raises the question: Can a judgment be valid if it's rendered in favor of a party who has passed away before the hearing?
On November 6, the Supreme Court ruled that such a judgment is legally invalid and holds no legal standing. In simpler terms, if an appellant passes away before their appeal is heard, the case is considered moot.
The case involved two defendants who filed an appeal challenging a trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. Tragically, both defendants passed away before the appeal could be heard. Despite this, the first appellate court proceeded to deliver a judgment favoring the deceased defendants, a decision later affirmed by the High Court.
The legal heir of the deceased defendants, now the appellant in the Supreme Court, sought to execute the appellate court's judgment. However, the plaintiffs objected, arguing that the judgment was null and void. Their objections were initially rejected.
Unsatisfied with this outcome, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court, contending that the first appellate court's judgment was indeed a nullity. The reasoning? The judgment was rendered in the names of parties who were no longer alive when the appeal was heard.
In a decision authored by Justice A.S. Chandurkar, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's ruling. The judgment stated:
"The fact remains that prior to the appeal being heard and decided, both appellants who had filed the said appeal were no more. The judgment pronounced in the first appeal on 20.10.2010 was thus in favor of parties who were no longer alive. This adjudication, therefore, amounted to a nullity and did not have the force of law."
The Court clarified that while Order XXII Rule 6 of the CPC validates a judgment if a party dies after the hearing but before the judgment is pronounced, this provision does not apply when the party dies before the appeal is heard. In such cases, the entire appellate process is rendered null.
The Court observed:
"During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No.4 expired on 27.10.2006, while defendant No.5 expired on 20.09.2010. The record indicates that the appeal was heard on 28.09.2010. According to Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code, if a party expires between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment, it does not result in the abatement of such proceedings, and the judgment, when pronounced, would have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death of such a party. Given that defendants Nos.4 and 5 had died prior to the appeal being heard on 28.09.2010, it is clear that the proceedings in the said appeal are not saved by the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code. In effect, the appeal was decided notwithstanding the death of both appellants, who had preferred the appeal."
Since the legal heirs were not brought into the record after the parties' deaths, the appellate judgment is considered a nullity. Consequently, only the decree of the trial court can be executed.
"In the present case, the judgment in favor of the deceased appellants would be a nullity in the absence of the legal heirs being brought on record, and the judgment of the trial court would govern the rights of the parties. Therefore, the decree passed by the trial court would be revived for execution."
The Court referred to previous judgments in similar cases, including Rajendra Prasad and another vs. Khirodhar Mahto and others Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994, Amba Bai and others vs. Gopal and Others 2001 INSC 263, and Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others vs. Harkoo Gope and others 1981 INSC 100.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting a precedent that emphasizes the importance of legal heirs being involved in cases where a party passes away during the appellate process.
Cause Title: VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1067
For those interested in further details, you can access the full judgment here: Link to Judgment PDF
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. (Virtual) Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Ms. Jyotika, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
