Question

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a suit has abated due to failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time, the court may set aside such abatement if the plaintiff shows:

• A. That decree has not yet been passed.
• B. Sufficient cause for not making the application within time.
• C. Error apparent on the face of record.
• D. That the defendant had knowledge of death.

Hint:

Remember the formula: Death of Party + Failure to Substitute Legal Representatives within Time = Abatement. Abatement + Sufficient Cause = Court may revive the suit under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Concept: The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains detailed provisions regarding situations where a party to a suit dies during the pendency of proceedings. Such situations are governed by Order XXII of the CPC. The law seeks to balance two objectives:

• Ensuring continuity of legal proceedings despite the death of a party.

• Preventing unnecessary delays in litigation.
When a party dies, his or her legal representatives must be substituted within the prescribed limitation period. Failure to do so results in abatement of the suit. However, the law also recognizes that genuine circumstances may prevent timely action. Therefore, courts are empowered to set aside abatement if sufficient cause for delay is established.

Step 1: Understanding the meaning of abatement.
Abatement means the suspension or termination of legal proceedings due to failure to comply with procedural requirements after the death of a party. Under Order XXII CPC:

• When a plaintiff or defendant dies,

• Their legal representatives must be brought on record,

• Within the prescribed limitation period.
If this is not done within time, the suit automatically abates against the deceased party.

Step 2: Examining the relevant legal provision.
Order XXII Rule 9 CPC specifically deals with setting aside abatement. The provision allows the affected party to apply before the court for revival of the suit. However, revival is not automatic. The applicant must satisfy the court that there existed: ``Sufficient Cause'' for not making the application within the prescribed period.

Step 3: Understanding the meaning of sufficient cause.
The expression "sufficient cause" is not rigidly defined in the CPC. Courts interpret it liberally where justice demands. Examples may include:

• Lack of knowledge regarding the death of a party.

• Serious illness of the applicant.

• Circumstances beyond the control of the litigant.

• Genuine procedural difficulties.
The burden lies upon the applicant to convince the court that the delay was neither intentional nor negligent.

Step 4: Applying the provision to the question.
The question asks under what condition the court may set aside abatement. Order XXII Rule 9 clearly provides that:

• The applicant must prove sufficient cause.

• Mere absence of a decree is irrelevant.

• Knowledge of death by the opposite party is not the determining factor.

• Error apparent on record relates to review proceedings, not abatement.
Therefore, the only legally correct requirement is proof of sufficient cause.

Step 5: Selecting the correct answer.
Since CPC expressly permits setting aside abatement upon proof of sufficient cause, the correct answer is: \[ \boxed{\text{Sufficient cause for not making the application within time}} \] Therefore, \[ \boxed{\text{Option (B)}} \]

Answer 2

This question turns on Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with abatement of suits on the death of a party and the conditions under which a court may set aside that abatement. Each option can be tested against what Rule 9 of Order XXII actually requires.

1. Option (A) - decree not yet passed: Abatement and its removal have nothing to do with whether a decree has been passed. Abatement occurs before a decree even comes into existence, since it operates on the pending suit itself. Whether or not a decree exists later is irrelevant to the test the court applies while deciding to set aside abatement, so this option does not state the real requirement.
2. Option (B) - sufficient cause for the delay: Order XXII Rule 9 conditions revival of an abated suit on the applicant satisfying the court that there was sufficient cause for not applying to bring the legal representatives on record within the limitation period. This is the actual statutory test, and it squarely matches the facts given in the question, a suit that abated because legal representatives were not brought on record in time.
3. Option (C) - error apparent on the face of the record: This phrase belongs to the law of review under Order XLVII of the CPC, where a party asks the court to reconsider its own order because of a patent mistake. It has no bearing on abatement, which is governed by an entirely separate part of the Code.
4. Option (D) - defendant's knowledge of death: Whether the opposite party knew that a party had died does not determine whether abatement can be set aside. The provision looks at the diligence and conduct of the applicant seeking revival, not at what the other side happened to know.

Testing each option against the actual wording of Order XXII Rule 9 leaves only sufficient cause as the ground on which a court can set aside abatement.

Hence, the correct answer is sufficient cause for not making the application within time.