Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) through LRs. vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan (Supreme Court, 30 April 2024)
Background
The case arose from a title dispute over property in Bihar. The original defendant, Swami Shivdharmanand Ji Maharaj, died during the pendency of a second appeal before the Patna High Court. Two claimants—Swami Triyoganand Ji Maharaj and Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj—sought substitution as legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court, after an inquiry, identified Swami Satyanand as the LR. However, the High Court initially substituted both claimants, a decision the Supreme Court set aside in 2018, remanding the matter for proper determination. On remand, the High Court confirmed only Swami Satyanand as LR, but did so without considering pending substitution applications and objections, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues
Whether the Patna High Court followed correct procedure under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC in determining and substituting the LR of the deceased appellant.
Whether the appellate court can delegate its responsibility to subordinate courts in such substitution matters.
The effect of procedural lapses on the legitimacy of substitution orders.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justices A.S. Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, held that substitution under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC is intended solely to ensure the continuation of proceedings and does not confer any substantive title or property rights to the substituted LR. The Court clarified that the appellate court retains ultimate discretion in deciding substitution, even if it relies on reports from subordinate courts. The proviso to Rule 5 does not allow the appellate court to abdicate its responsibility; it must independently consider all reports, objections, and evidence before making a substitution order.
The Court found that the High Court failed to resolve all pending applications and objections, violating procedural fairness and the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. It emphasized that unresolved procedural issues in substitution can undermine trust in the judicial process and that natural justice requires all objections and applications to be addressed prior to substitution.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s substitution order and remanded the matter for fresh determination, directing the High Court to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. The Court reiterated that substitution is for representation in ongoing litigation only and does not affect substantive rights or title to the property.
Significance
This judgment reinforces procedural rigor in substitution of legal representatives in civil litigation, clarifies the limited purpose of such substitution, and underscores the necessity for courts to resolve all objections and applications to uphold fairness and due process.
Citation: Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) through LRs. vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors., [2024] 5 S.C.R. 462 : 2024 INSC 352, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 30 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments