Gouri Shankar Yadav v. Janki Dom (D) -CPC - Substitution Application - Delay Condonation
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Substitution Application - High Court rejected the delay condonation application and consequently, substitution application merely for the reason that court presumed that since the parties were resident of same locality, they were aware of the death - Allowing appeal, SC held: No such presumption in law exists.
Case Info
Basic case details
Case name: Gouri Shankar Yadav v. Janki Dom (Dead) through LRs & Others
Neutral citation: Not mentioned in the text provided (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 886–888 of 2026 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 10197–10198 of 2014).
Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj MithalHon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Judgment date: 09 February 2026
Caselaws and citations
No prior precedents or case citations are mentioned in the extracted text. The order proceeds on first‑principles regarding delay condonation and presumption of knowledge of death; there are no reported decisions cited by name or citation.
Statutes / laws referred
The order does not expressly name any statute or provision. Implicitly, it deals with:
- Law relating to abatement and substitution in appellate proceedings (i.e., provisions analogous to Order XXII CPC and the Limitation Act on condonation of delay), but these are not specifically cited in the text.
Three‑sentence summary
This Supreme Court order arises from rejection by the Jharkhand High Court of an application to condone approximately seven months’ delay in filing a substitution application on the death of respondent no. 1 in a Second Appeal. The High Court had presumed that, since the parties lived in the same locality, the appellant must have known of the respondent’s death; the Supreme Court held that no such presumption exists in law and that the appellant was in fact not aware of the date of death. Setting aside the High Court’s order dated 13/04.01.2013, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, set aside any abatement, permitted substitution of the deceased respondent’s legal representatives, and allowed the appeals.