Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1283 - Decree - Appellants Expired
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXII Rule 6 -Decree - The decree passed by the first appellate Court passed in an appeal, where both the appellants had expired prior to the appeal being heard, its decree in favour of dead persons was a nullity - The proceedings in such appeal are not saved by the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6- If a decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even at the stage of execution (Para 14)
Case Info
Key details
- Case name: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1283.
- Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
- Judgment date: November 06, 2025, New Delhi.
Caselaws and citations
- P. Chandrasekharan v. S. Kanakarajan, 2007 INSC 495.
- Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto, Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994, decided on 11.01.1994.
- Amba Bai v. Gopal, 2001 INSC 263.
- Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope, 1981 INSC 100.
- Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, 1954 INSC 45.
Statutes and laws referred
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96 (first appeal), Section 100 (second appeal), Order XXII Rule 2(2), Order XXII Rule 6 (death between hearing and judgment).
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 120 (90-day period to substitute legal representatives).
When appellant dies before hearing of an appeal, which is subsequently allowed without legal heirs being brought on record, such a decree of Appellate Court is a nullity.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/AfYio97RnN pic.twitter.com/pZThVK538k
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 6, 2025
If a decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even at the stage of execution.#SupremeCourtofIndia https://t.co/AfYio97RnN pic.twitter.com/o752akh0gH
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 6, 2025