Madhya Pradesh High Court | Presiding Officer Lacked Basic Knowledge of Procedural Law | Civil Judge Directed to Undergo Training After Erroneous Rejection of Substitution Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Hirdesh held that the name of the petitioner shall be substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff on the basis of a will executed by the original plaintiff. The Court set aside the trial court’s order which had rejected the petitioner’s application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court further directed the trial court to implead the petitioner as plaintiff and proceed with adjudication of the civil suit in accordance with law. The Court additionally observed that the presiding officer of the trial court demonstrated lack of procedural understanding and recommended training.
The case originated from a civil suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land situated in Village Bilheti, Patwari Halka No.120, Tahsil and District Gwalior. The land comprised survey numbers 1105, 1561, 1563/1, 1563/2, 2035/1, 2035/2, 2224, 2226/1 and 2226/2. The original plaintiff, Munni Devi, daughter of late Jagannath Prasad Mudgal, claimed a one-third share in the disputed property. She filed the suit seeking partition of her share by metes and bounds.
During her lifetime, Munni Devi executed a will dated 4 May 2024 in favour of her late husband, Sitaram Pathak, and their children, bequeathing her movable and immovable properties. Munni Devi died on 12 May 2024. After her death, her son filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, annexing the death certificate, and sought substitution of his name in place of Munni Devi as plaintiff. He contended that the right to sue survived in his favour by virtue of the will.
The trial court rejected the application on 8 January 2025 in RCSA No. 233 of 2021. It held that other legal heirs of Munni Devi were also mentioned in the will, but their names were not included in the substitution application. The trial court concluded that the petitioner could not be recognized as the sole legal heir for substitution in the plaint.
The petitioner then filed the present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the trial court’s order. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the application, as he was a Class I heir of the deceased and also a beneficiary under the will. He asserted that rejection of substitution would result in grave injustice. In support, reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment in Shakuntla (Ms) v. Shaturghan (1993) 1 MPWN 99 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolai Molliko and Others v. Krushna Chandra Patnaik and Others, AIR 1967 SC 49.
The respondents opposed the petition, supporting the trial court’s findings, and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
The Court considered the observations made by the trial court and noted its reasoning: “From perusal of the will dated 04.05.24 presented in support of the application, it is clear that in addition to the applicant, the deceased plaintiff Munni Devi had other sons who were also entitled to a share. Since their names were not mentioned in the application, it does not appear appropriate to treat the applicant as the sole heir and substitute him as plaintiff.”
Upon perusal of the impugned order, the Court recorded: “The trial Court rejected the application of petitioner only on the ground that in addition to petitioner, other legal heirs of deceased-plaintiff do exist in the 'Will' executed by deceased-plaintiff in favour of petitioner.”
Citing the Division Bench judgment in Shakuntla (supra), the Court observed: “After death of original plaintiff, the holder of 'Will' may be substituted in place of deceased-plaintiff, because he represents the estate of deceased and no further enquiry is necessary.” The Bench further quoted the statutory definition: “The term 'legal representative' is defined in Section 2(11) of CPC to mean 'a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who inter-meddles with estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued'.”
The Court also quoted the Supreme Court’s observations in Dolai Molliko (supra): “Unless there is fraud or collusion or there are other circumstances which indicate that there has not been a fair or real trial... there is no reason why the heirs who have applied for being brought on record should not be held to represent the entire estate including the interests of the heirs not brought on the record.”
It was further observed: “In the present case, the defendants/respondents have not stated that the 'Will' was executed by means of fraud or collusion. So, on the basis of 'Will' executed by deceased-plaintiff, the name of petitioner shall be substituted in place of deceased plaintiff.”
The Court concluded that the trial court committed error in rejecting the application.
The Court set aside the impugned order. It directed: “Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to implead petitioner as 'plaintiff' and decide the suit in accordance with law.”
The Court further recorded: “When trial Court rejected application filed by petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC and no plaintiff was surviving for suing the suit, then the suit ought to have been rejected as abated but the trial Court fixed the case for plaintiff's evidence.”
The Court added: “It is crystal clear that the Presiding Officer of Trial Court, namely, Ms.Varsha Bhalavi has no basic knowledge of law and she needs training in JOTRI regarding procedural law. In this regard, a copy of this order be forwarded to District Judge of concerned District, Director of JOTRI as well as the Registrar General of this High Court, Jabalpur.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Ms. Pratika Pathak and Shri Rajiv Raghuvanshi – learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Shri Tara Chandra Narwariya; Shri Dhirendra Singh Chouhan; Shri Man Singh Jadon, Government Advocate.
Case Title: Pawan Pathak v. Nathuram and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-GWL:19853
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 440 of 2025
Bench: Justice Hirdesh
