Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is pivotal in addressing the implications of the death, marriage, and insolvency of parties in civil litigation in India. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the rules under Order 22, exploring their significance and application, supported by relevant case laws and judicial interpretations. By examining the procedural safeguards enshrined in Order 22, the article aims to elucidate its importance in ensuring access to justice and maintaining the continuity of legal proceedings.

Introduction
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to civil procedure in India. Order 22 specifically addresses scenarios that may arise during the course of civil proceedings, including the death, marriage, or insolvency of parties. The principles underlying this Order are crucial to ensuring that civil litigation is not unduly hindered by personal circumstances, thereby upholding the sanctity of the judicial process.

The Necessity of Order 22 CPC

Order 22 serves the essential purpose of ensuring that civil suits can proceed despite personal changes in the status of parties involved. The rules within this Order emphasize the need for continuity in legal proceedings and safeguard the rights of parties, allowing litigation to continue without interruption.

• Rule 1: No Abatement by Death (Order 22 Rule 1)
  • Rule 1 states that the death of a party does not result in the abatement of a suit if the right to sue survives. The significance of this rule lies in its ability to ensure that causes of action are preserved despite the death of a litigant.
  • Case Law: In Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of allowing the right to sue to survive, emphasizing that legal proceedings should not be unnecessarily delayed due to the death of a party.
• Rule 2: Procedure Where One of Several Plaintiffs or Defendants Dies (Order 22 Rule 2)
  • This rule provides that if one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies, the suit may continue, provided the right to sue survives against the remaining parties. The court must record the death and proceed accordingly.
  • Case Law: In Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram (2001) 6 SCC 618, the Supreme Court held that the remaining parties can continue the suit, underscoring the importance of this provision for the continuity of legal proceedings.
• Rule 3: Procedure in Case of Death of One of Several Plaintiffs (Order 22 Rule 3)
  • This rule outlines the procedure to be followed when one of the plaintiffs dies. If the right to sue does not survive, the suit shall abate concerning the deceased plaintiff.
  • Case Law: In Mohan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 762, the court elaborated on the procedural requirements for recording the death of a plaintiff, emphasizing the need for adherence to the rules to maintain judicial efficiency.
• Rule 4: Procedure in Case of Death of One of Several Defendants (Order 22 Rule 4)
  • Rule 4 provides that if one of several defendants dies, the legal representative of the deceased must be substituted in the proceedings. This ensures that the interests of the deceased party are represented in court.
  • Case Law: In K.K. Verma vs. State of U.P. AIR 1954 All 123, it was established that the legal representative's substitution is mandatory for the suit to continue against the surviving defendants.
• Rule 5: Determination of Legal Representative (Order 22 Rule 5)
  • This rule allows the court to determine disputes regarding the identity of a legal representative. It emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that the rightful representative is appointed.
  • Case Law: In Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. (1994) 1 SCC 134, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the court to adjudicate on matters relating to legal representatives, reinforcing the need for clarity in representation.
• Rule 6: No Abatement by Reason of Death After Hearing (Order 22 Rule 6)
  • This provision states that if a party dies after the hearing is concluded but before the judgment is pronounced, the suit will not abate.
  • Case Law: In M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 2, the Supreme Court highlighted that the death occurring after the conclusion of arguments does not result in abatement, thus ensuring that judicial determinations are respected.
• Rule 7: Marriage of Female Party (Order 22 Rule 7)
  • This rule states that the marriage of a female party does not cause the abatement of a suit. This provision reflects the evolving understanding of women's rights within the legal framework.
  • Case Law: In Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1998) 4 SCC 62, the Supreme Court recognized the significance of this provision in safeguarding women's rights, emphasizing that marital status should not impede access to justice.
• Rule 8: Effect of Insolvency on the Suit (Order 22 Rule 8)
  • This rule stipulates that if a plaintiff becomes insolvent, the suit does not automatically abate; it only abates if the assignee or receiver fails to pursue it.
  • Case Law: In Vardha Singh vs. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 167, the Supreme Court ruled that the insolvency of a party should not prevent the continuation of legal proceedings, thereby protecting the interests of all parties involved.
• Rule 9: Effect of Abatement or Dismissal (Order 22 Rule 9)
  • Once a suit has abated or been dismissed, no fresh suit shall be instituted on the same cause of action. This rule prevents multiplicity of proceedings and promotes judicial efficiency.
  • Case Law: In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Rule 9 in maintaining the finality of judgments and preventing re-litigation of the same issues.
• Rule 10: Procedure in Case of Assignment (Order 22 Rule 10)
  • This rule provides that a suit may continue against or by a person who has acquired interest during the pendency of the suit, subject to the court's approval.
  • Case Law: In Union of India vs. L.K. Verma (1997) 4 SCC 97, the Supreme Court clarified the need for court approval for the continuance of suits involving parties that acquire interest, reinforcing the procedural integrity of litigation.
• Rule 11: Application of Order to Appeals (Order 22 Rule 11)
  • This provision extends the applicability of Order 22 to appeals, ensuring consistency in the procedural framework throughout different stages of litigation.
  • Case Law: In Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1996) 6 SCC 61, the Supreme Court upheld the application of Order 22 to appellate proceedings, ensuring uniformity in procedural matters.

Judicial Interpretations and Developments

• The interpretation of Order 22 by various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India has provided clarity and guidance on its application. The following cases exemplify judicial interpretations that have shaped the understanding of Order 22.

The Role of Legal Representatives

• The role of legal representatives, as outlined in Order 22, is pivotal for the smooth continuation of legal proceedings. Courts have consistently emphasized the necessity of timely substitution of legal representatives to prevent abatement of suits.
• Case Law: In Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of legal representatives in ensuring the rights of deceased parties are protected.

Gender Equity and Marriage

• The provisions concerning the marriage of female parties in Rule 7 reflect the legal system's commitment to gender equity. Courts have consistently reinforced the notion that marital status should not impede access to justice.
• Case Law: In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 2, the Supreme Court acknowledged the need for women's rights to be upheld in legal proceedings, further solidifying the principles enshrined in Rule 7.

Insolvency and Legal Proceedings

• Order 22 addresses the issue of insolvency, ensuring that the legal rights of a party are preserved despite financial difficulties. The provision highlights the need for balance in protecting creditors' rights while ensuring access to justice for debtors.
• Case Law: In Vardha Singh vs. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 167, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of insolvency provisions in safeguarding the integrity of legal proceedings.

Conclusion

• The provisions of Order 22 CPC serve as critical safeguards in the judicial process, promoting fairness and continuity in legal proceedings. The interpretation and application of these rules by the judiciary have played a significant role in shaping the landscape of civil litigation in India.
• As legal principles evolve, the relevance of Order 22 will continue to be scrutinized, ensuring that it meets the changing needs of society while upholding the rule of law.

Conclusion
Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, plays a vital role in ensuring that civil litigation remains unaffected by personal changes in the status of parties. By providing clear guidelines on the death, marriage, and insolvency of parties, Order 22 ensures the continuity of legal proceedings and upholds the principles of justice and equity.

The interpretation and application of these rules by the judiciary underscore their significance in the broader context of civil litigation in India. With the evolving nature of society and legal principles, continued judicial scrutiny and potential amendments to Order 22 will be essential to ensure that it meets the needs of contemporary legal practice while upholding the rights of all parties involved.

References:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
3. Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, (2001) 6 SCC 618.
4. Mohan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 762.
5. K.K. Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 All 123.
6. Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., (1994) 1 SCC 134.
7. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. V. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 2.
8. Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1998) 4 SCC 62.
9. Vardha Singh v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 167.
10. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1.
11. Union of India v. L.K. Verma, (1997) 4 SCC 97.
12. Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197.
13. Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1998) 6 SCC 584.