Shankar Lal And Anr. vs Sakil Ahmed And Ors.

The Supreme Court held that under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the CPC, a suit abates if the plaintiffs fail to substitute a deceased defendant, as was the case with defendant No. 2 who died before the amendment of Sub-rule 4 of Rule 4, which has no retrospective effect. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs could not benefit from the amended provision since it was not in existence at the time of the defendant's death. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the trial court was set aside, treating the suit as having abated.