SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the abatement of a long-pending civil second appeal after condoning delays in filing applications related to the substitution of legal heirs of a deceased respondent, holding that courts should adopt a liberal approach in matters involving procedural delays to advance substantial justice.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar passed the order on May 29, 2026, in CSA No. 08/2013, titled Maqbool Buhroo and others versus Ahad Buhroo and others, after reserving judgment on May 15, 2026.
The appeal had come under challenge after respondent No. 7, Mohammad Ashraf, a resident of Mutalhama in Kulgam district, died on March 21, 2020. The surviving respondents subsequently moved an application seeking dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the appellants had failed to bring the legal heirs of the deceased respondent on record within the statutory limitation period.
The appellants, however, argued that they became aware of the death only after the respondents filed an application in October 2025 seeking declaration of abatement. They also submitted that time was consumed in identifying the legal heirs due to strained relations between the parties. Another ground cited was the absence of senior counsel Altaf Haqani from the country between November 2025 and February 2026.
Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani, assisted by Advocate Asif Wani, appeared for the appellants. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate GA Lone along with Advocate Mujeeb Andrabi.
The respondents opposed the plea for condonation of delay, contending that the parties belonged to the same village and lived in adjacent houses, making it implausible that the appellants were unaware of the death. They also argued that mention of the respondent as “dead” in an earlier application filed in August 2024 sufficiently conveyed the factum of death.
Rejecting the objection, the court held that the counsel for the respondents had failed to comply with Rule 10-A of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which obligates lawyers to formally inform the court about the death of a party so that notice can be issued to the opposite side.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that merely inserting the word “dead” in a smaller font against the name of respondent No. 7 in an earlier application could not be treated as compliance with the statutory requirement.
“The font of the word ‘dead’ is far smaller than the font used in the application as well as the title. This was done with a deliberate attempt to keep the appellants in the dark till the period of limitation expired and the appeal stood abated,” the court observed.
The court further held that even if October 8, 2025, the date on which the appellants received the respondents’ application, was treated as the date of knowledge, the delay in seeking setting aside of the abatement was only 12 days and deserved liberal consideration.
“It is always the tendency of the Courts to set aside abatement and decide matters on merits rather than terminate the proceedings on technical grounds,” the court said.
Emphasising the need for a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court held that procedural rules are intended to advance justice rather than defeat substantive rights.
Consequently, the court condoned the delays in filing the applications, set aside the abatement of the appeal, and allowed substitution of the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 7 on record.
The appellants have been directed to file a fresh memo of parties, while the registry has been asked to issue notice to the substituted respondents within four weeks. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 17, 2026.
