1. Review Petitioners are the additional respondents 2 and 4 in S.A.No.687/1999. The second appeal was filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment in A.S.No.57/1989 on the files of the Additional District Court, Kottayam arising from O.S.No.134/1986 of the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Kottayam.

2. The second appeal was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 6.9.2018. Seeking review of the said judgment, this petition was filed on various grounds. Nevertheless, at the time of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that only the ground pertaining to the demise of the additional second appellant before the date of judgment is pressed. The parties were therefore heard only on the said aspect. Hence, detailed narration of the facts is not required.

3. As noted above, the second appeal was allowed on 6.9.2018. However, the second appellant, Rev.Thomas Philip had expired on 28.3.2013. The demise of the 2nd appellant was not brought to the notice of this Court and the legal representatives did not get impleaded in the second appeal. Thus, this Court happened to pass the judgment without noticing that the 2nd appellant was no more.

4. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that with the death of the 2nd appellant the appeal automatically abated. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the second appeal is a nullity as the same was passed in favour of a dead person. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Budh Ram and Others v. Bansi and others [(2010) 11 SCC 476]. The learned counsel invited attention of the Court to the following observations in the judgment:-

                  “10. Abatement takes place automatically by application of law without any order of the court. Setting aside of abatement can be sought once the suit stands abated. Abatement in fact results in denial to hearing of the case on merits. Order 22 Rule 1 CPC deals with the question of abatement on the death of the plaintiff or of the defendant in a civil suit. Order 22 Rule 2 relates to procedure where one of the several plaintiffs or the defendants die and the right to sue survives. Order 22 Rule 3 CPC deals with procedure in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs or of the sole plaintiff. Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, however, deals with procedure in case of death of one of the several defendants or of the sole defendant. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 makes it crystal clear that:

                  “4. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.””

5. He submitted that the original appellant in the second appeal, Rev.Mathew Kaparambil expired after filing the appeal and then the 2nd appellant, Rev.Thomas Philip Marankollil got impleaded as per order dated 28.6.2002 in C.M.P.No.32/2001. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that the deceased 2nd appellant himself had got impleaded on the death of the original appellant and hence the respondents cannot be permitted to contend that on the death of the 2nd appellant no impleadment was required. He hence submitted that the judgment in the second appeal may be reviewed and set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand submitted that the appeal was filed by the Bishop on behalf of the Diocese and the Diocese being a juristic person, no abatement would result on the death of the Bishop. He contended that notwithstanding the demise of the 2nd appellant, the appeal deserved to be heard and disposed of. Hence, though the demise of the 2nd appellant was not brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment in the second appeal is lawful. He hence submitted that the review cannot be allowed on the ground that the 2nd appellant was no more when the judgment was rendered. The learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the observation in the judgment sought to be reviewed to the effect that suit is instituted by the Bishop on behalf of the Diocese.

7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and supported the petitioners. He submitted that the suit was not filed in a representative capacity. It was filed by the Bishop in his personal capacity. Therefore, on the death of the original appellant the 2nd appellant got impleaded to prosecute the appeal further. He hence submitted that the contention now raised that the appeal was filed on behalf of the Diocese and hence the same would not abate on the demise of the 2nd appellant is not legally sustainable.

8. The suit was filed by the Bishop and not by the Diocese. The second appeal was also filed by the Bishop. It is to be noted that the 2nd appellant got himself impleaded on the demise of the original appellant. Right now, the contention of the 3rd respondent is that the suit was filed on behalf of the Diocese and hence the demise of the 2nd appellant did not lead to the abatement of the second appeal. If that be so, what prompted the 2nd appellant to get impleaded on the demise of the original appellant is not explained. It may be correct that the Bishop sued for the benefit of the Diocese. Nevertheless, the plaintiff in the suit and the appellant before this Court was not the Diocese, but the Bishop. Conduct of the 2nd appellant in getting himself impleaded to pursue the appeal on the death of the original appellant is very relevant in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be said that impleadment of the successor was not necessary to prosecute the appeal. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, abatement is automatic and no orders of the Court are required for the same. Hence, on the death of the 2nd appellant, the second appeal abated. The judgment is therefore a nullity and it is liable to be recalled.

9. In the result, this review petition is allowed, the judgment dated 6.9.2018 in S.A.No.687/1999 is set aside. The second appeal is restored to files.

                  Review Petition is disposed of as above.