Phool Singh vs Randheer Singh

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos……..………….of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025)

Phool Singh …Appellant Versus Randheer Singh & Ors. …Respondents ORDER

Leave granted.

2. A civil revision, in which there were three respondents,

was dismissed as abated, since the application to implead the

legal heirs of the deceased second respondent was found to be

filed grossly belated.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that true,

a mistake occurred on the part of the counsel for the appellant,

insofar as not having taken steps to implead the legal heirs at

Signature Not Verified the proper time. The intimation of the death of the second Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA

respondent and the details of the legal heirs were brought on Date: 2025.12.23 15:24:03 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 6

CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025 record by the counsel for the deceased respondent as early as

in 2022, evident from Annexure P-3, indicating the death having

occurred on 26.10.2017. The application to implead the legal

heirs along with the application to set aside the abatement and

condonation of delay occasioned was filed only on 27.02.2024.

Even if the revision petition is abated as against the second

respondent, there is no cause to dismiss the petition as such,

since the contesting party was the first respondent, against

whom the revision survives.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other

hand, submits that the entire process is a dilatory tactic,

especially, since the direct brother of the appellant was in the

party array and the deceased respondent is his uncle. There is

no bona fides, even in the submission of the appellant that he

came to know of the death only when an affidavit with the

details of the legal heirs and intimating the death of the second

respondent was brought on record.

5. Immediately we have to notice that the contesting

respondent is also the uncle of the appellant. On facts, suffice it

Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025 to notice that the predecessors of the parties were one Rajdhar

Singh whose children were the first respondent, the deceased

second respondent and the father of the appellant herein. The

first respondent filed a suit against the deceased second

respondent and the brother of the appellant who was the

nephew. A settlement was entered into on 13.05.1996 and a

compromise decree was passed. The terms of the compromise

decree having not worked out, the first respondent filed an

appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Sironj, Vidisha,

Madhya Pradesh. There was a remand made upon which the

learned Civil Judge passed a judgment and decree on

28.02.2003.

6. The appellant herein, the nephew of the first respondent

herein and the deceased second respondent filed an

application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9

Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 which stood

dismissed. A civil miscellaneous appeal filed as MCA No.02-

02/2007 was rejected on 13.02.2012 against which the revision

1 for short, the CPC Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025 was filed. In the revision, the parties were the first respondent-

Randheer Singh, the plaintiff, the second respondent-Aman

Singh, who later died, both of whom were sons of Rajdhar Singh

and the third respondent-Kallu @ Kishan Singh, the brother of

the appellant. The appellant Phool Singh is also the son of Ratan

Singh.

7. The second respondent in the revision died on 26.10.2017

which was brought to the notice of the Court by Annexure P-3

dated 20.04.2022. True, there was substantial delay in filing the

application for impleadment along with the application to set

aside abatement and condonation of delay occasioned in filing

of both the above applications.

8. What is pertinent is that merely because the second

respondent’s legal heirs were not impleaded and the revision

stood abated with respect to him, it cannot stand abated against

the other respondents. The High Court had clearly erred in

dismissing the civil revision petition as abated merely because

the legal heirs of one of the respondents was not impleaded

within time after the death of that respondent. In such

Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025 circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court

impugned herein.

9. Before us, the legal heirs of the second respondent in the

civil revision petition; impleaded in this appeal as an abundant

caution, also appears through a learned Counsel. It is stated by

the learned counsel that the legal heirs too have filed an appeal

from the impugned order in the above case. The legal heirs also

are desirous of appearing in the civil revision and agitating

their cause.

10. In the overall circumstances, as seen from the above, we

are convinced that not only should the civil revision be

restored, the legal heirs of the second respondent should also

be permitted to be impleaded.

11. We make this order to ensure that there is a proper

adjudication of the issue. Despite laxity of the appellant, the

revision petitioner, in not having impleaded the legal heirs

immediately after the death of the second respondent, who was

his uncle, the legal heirs of the second respondent are entitled

to agitate their cause.

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025

12. The appeals are allowed with the above directions, and

the parties are directed to appear before the High Court on

23.01.2026. The revision shall be considered on its own merits.

13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…….………….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 17, 2025.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) Nos.21573-21574 of 2025