Court Must Decide Case On Merits, Not Reject It On Technical Grounds: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order of the First Appellate Court which had dismissed a civil appeal as not maintainable for want of impleadment of a deceased plaintiff’s legal representative, holding that procedural delay cannot override substantive justice.

In Second Appeal No. 2919 of 2025, the bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal allowed the appeal filed by Ramswaroop and another, restoring their civil appeal for decision on merits. The court categorically observed that once the trial court had permitted amendment of the judgment and decree to reflect substitution of the legal representative, the appellate court ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

The dispute traces back to a civil suit instituted by Churaman, Pimmi Bai and Sita Bai seeking declaration of title, nullification of a 1985 partition, cancellation of a 2020 sale deed and partition with separate possession. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff Pimmi Bai died. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for substitution of her legal representative, Nindram, was allowed in July 2021. However, his name was not incorporated in the plaint, and the suit was eventually decreed on March 13, 2023.

The defendants preferred a regular civil appeal contending that the decree was a nullity as it had been passed against a dead person. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved an application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC seeking correction of the judgment and decree in light of the earlier substitution order. The trial court allowed the application on October 26, 2023 and permitted amendment in the cause title and decree.

Subsequently, the appellants sought substitution of the deceased plaintiff’s legal representative in the pending civil appeal. The first appellate court, however, rejected the application on the ground of delay and dismissed the entire appeal as not maintainable, without examining the merits.

Before the High court, Senior Advocate D.K. Dixit, along with Advocate Abhishek Dubey, appearing for the appellants, argued that once the trial court had amended the decree and corrected the cause title, the appellate court was duty-bound to permit corresponding substitution in the appeal. They contended that the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds defeated the very purpose of appellate scrutiny.

Appearing for the respondents, Advocate Shankar Prasad Singh supported the appellate court’s reasoning, primarily on the ground of delay. Panel Lawyer Saurabh Singh Sengar represented the State.

Justice Bansal framed the substantial question of law as to whether, in light of the amendment carried out by the trial court, the first appellate court had committed illegality in dismissing the substitution application and the appeal itself for want of necessary parties.

Answering the question in favour of the appellants, the court held that the appellate court ought to have permitted impleadment and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. The court relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003) 10 SCC 691, wherein it was held that legal representatives brought on record at any stage enure for the benefit of the entire proceedings.

Quoting the Apex Court, Justice Bansal reiterated that once legal representatives are brought on record, “all that would remain to be done is the ministerial act of correcting the index of the parties.” The High court further observed that in such circumstances, “there was no question of delay in moving the application for substitution,” and that even a formal application may not be necessary for what is essentially a ministerial correction.

Finding that the first appellate court had not considered the matter on merits and had dismissed the appeal solely on a technical objection, the High court set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated October 13, 2025. The matter has been remanded to the first appellate court for fresh adjudication on merits after permitting substitution of the legal representative of deceased Pimmi Bai.

Case Title: Ramswaroop and another v. Churaman and Others

Date of Judgment: February 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal