Order XXII is a procedural provision within the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the continuation or termination of a civil suit upon the occurrence of specific events affecting the parties. It was created as part of the CPC, 1908, to solve the problem of procedural uncertainty when a party to a suit dies, marries, or becomes insolvent during the pendency of the case. The core concept it addresses is abatement, which is the cessation of a legal proceeding without a final determination on the merits.
The mechanism of Order XXII is primarily detailed in its Rules. Rule 1 establishes the fundamental principle that the death of a plaintiff or defendant will not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. If the right to sue survives, Rule 3 (for plaintiffs) and Rule 4 (for defendants) mandate that an application must be made to the court to substitute the deceased party with their legal representative. If this application is not made within the time limited by law, which is ninety days from the date of death as per Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit shall abate against the deceased party. Rule 9 allows for an application to set aside the abatement if the party can show sufficient cause for the delay, often requiring a delay condonation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Other key provisions include Rule 7, which states that the marriage of a female plaintiff or defendant does not cause the suit to abate. Rule 8 addresses the insolvency of a plaintiff, where the suit may be continued by the assignee or receiver. A significant exception is found in Rule 6, which prevents abatement if the death occurs between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of judgment. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Ram Charan (AIR 1964 SC 215), emphasized that the right to sue survives if the cause of action continues despite the death of a party. Order XXII is intrinsically connected to the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes the time limit for substitution. There have been no recent major central amendments that fundamentally changed the core mechanism of abatement, though High Courts have made specific local amendments.