A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr LRs v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors., decided on 30 April 2024, revolves around the legal procedure under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly the determination of legal representatives (LRs) for deceased parties in ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court highlighted procedural lapses by the Patna High Court in substituting one party, Respondent No.6, as an LR without adequately considering objections and reports from lower courts. It reiterated that substitution under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC serves only to continue proceedings and does not confer title or property rights. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in substitution cases and directed a fresh decision from the High Court adhering to proper procedural guidelines.

Keywords: Substitution application, Legal Representatives, Order XXII Rule 5 CPC, Appellate Court, Procedural Error.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr LRs v. Shyam Lal Chauhan & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal Nos. 5569-5570 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
30 April 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

vi) Author:
Justice A.S. Bopanna

vii) Citation:
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 462 : 2024 INSC 352

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Order XXII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly overruled; previous procedural lapses were corrected.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Civil Procedure Law, Substitution of Parties

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case stemmed from a dispute over legal representation in a second appeal pending before the Patna High Court. The appeal originated from a title suit concerning property in Bihar. The original defendant, Swami Shivdharmanand, passed away, prompting claims from two successors for substitution as his LR. The High Court’s substitution of both claimants was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2018, which remanded the matter for proper determination. Subsequent procedural lapses during substitution led to further challenges, culminating in this appeal.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The initial title suit sought declarations regarding a property in Bihar. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1991, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision.
2. Defendant Swami Shivdharmanand, aggrieved by the First Appellate Court’s decree, filed a second appeal in the Patna High Court. He died during the pendency of this appeal, leading to substitution claims by two individuals—Swami Triyoganand Ji Maharaj and Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj.
3. The Trial Court, after enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC, identified Swami Satyanand as the LR. However, objections were raised, and the High Court substituted both claimants in 2009, a decision the Supreme Court later overturned in 2018.
4. Following remand, the High Court confirmed Swami Satyanand as the sole LR in 2019 but ignored pending substitution applications and objections. This procedural irregularity led to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Patna High Court followed the correct procedure under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC while determining and substituting the LR of the deceased appellant.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The petitioner contended that the High Court violated the Supreme Court’s 2018 order by failing to adequately consider objections against the Trial Court’s report during the substitution process.

ii) The High Court’s substitution order disregarded pending substitution applications and procedural fairness, undermining the principle of natural justice.

iii) The substitution determination process, as mandated by Order XXII Rule 5 CPC, was misapplied, compromising the integrity of appellate proceedings.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondent argued that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and relied on the Trial Court’s findings, which unequivocally supported Swami Satyanand’s claim as LR.

ii) They emphasized the urgency and propriety of substituting a representative to ensure the continuation of the case without undue delay.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) Substitution under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC does not confer property rights but ensures representation continuity. Courts must apply this provision with careful procedural compliance.
ii) The appellate court retains discretion under the Rule’s proviso to independently decide substitution issues based on comprehensive material, including subordinate court findings and objections.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) Procedural lapses in substitution can erode litigants’ trust in judicial processes. Courts must safeguard against such lapses.

c. GUIDELINES

• Rule 5 CPC Compliance: Courts must thoroughly examine all evidence, reports, and objections before substituting legal representatives.
• No Procedural Delegation: Appellate courts cannot abdicate their responsibility by uncritically accepting subordinate court findings.
• Natural Justice: Pending applications and objections must be resolved to uphold fairness and procedural integrity.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh substitution determination, underscoring strict adherence to procedural norms under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to procedural rigor, balancing expedience with fairness in civil litigation.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust (2008) 8 SCC 521

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXII Rule 5