Smt. Phoolan Devi and 4 Others vs Smt. Mala Devi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Smt. Phoolan Devi and 4 Others vs Smt. Mala Devi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief or adjudication on merits at this stage. Interim directions only: respondents granted four weeks to file counter affidavit with advance copy to petitioners' counsel, who may respond within ten days thereafter; matter listed on 18.11.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, stated to be second cousins of the deceased original plaintiff Sri Budhai, were the legal heirs/legal representatives entitled to substitution and to carry Regular Suit no.824 of 2018 forward, notwithstanding that the suit had been instituted through a next friend. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 7), Jaspreet Singh, J. — Matters Under Article 227 No. 5734 of 2025, Smt. Phoolan Devi and 4 others v. Smt. Mala Devi and another (decided September 25, 2025). Petition under Article 227 challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shrawasti in Civil Revision No.10 of 2022, whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent was allowed, the substitution application moved by the petitioners was rejected, and the suit was dismissed as having abated. Background: Regular Suit no.824 of 2018 was instituted by Sri Budhai, said to be differently abled, through next friend Vinay s/o Bechanlal; Budhai expired on 08.09.2016 during its pendency; the petitioners, stated to be his second cousins, sought substitution, which the respondents opposed on the ground that neither the next friend nor the second cousins were legal heirs/legal representatives. The trial court had provisionally allowed substitution on payment of cost while deferring the issue; the revisional court reversed, resulting in abatement. Petitioners contend they were the legal heirs entitled to carry the suit to its logical conclusion and that the revisional court's exercise of jurisdiction is patently erroneous. At hearing, Sri Manish Kumar (counsel for the private respondent) accepted notice on caveat; four weeks was granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit (petitioners' response within ten days thereafter) and the matter was listed on 18.11.2025. No question of law decided; interim stage only.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5734 of 2025

Smt. Phoolan Devi And 4 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Smt. Mala Devi And Another	Versus .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, Madan Gopal Tripathi : Manish Kumar

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Sri Manish Kumar learned counsel has accepted notice on caveat on behalf of private respondent.

Under challenge is the order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Civil Revision no.10 of 2022 whereby the Additional District Judge, Shrawasti has allowed the revision preferred by the private respondent and dismissed a suit as having abated.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Regular Suit no.824 of 2018 was instituted by Sri Budhai who was said to be differently abled and the said suit was filed through next friend, Vinay s/o Bechanlal.

During the pendency of the suit, Sri Budhai expired on 08.09.2016. Thereafter, the present petitioners who are the second cousin of Budhai moved an application for substitution. This was objected by the private respondents on the premise that since the suit has been instituted through next friend, accordingly, upon the death of the original plaintiff neither the next friend could continue with the suit nor the second cousin who had moved the application could continue hence, they were neither the legal heir nor the legal representatives, accordingly, the application should not have been allowed.

A227 No. 5734 of 2025

2

The record reflects that the trial court considering the complexity of the issue, at the stage of consideration of the application for substitution noticed that the issue could be considered at later stage, after permitting the parties to lead the respective parties and in order that the suit should proceed allowed the application on payment of cost. This order of the trial court was assailed in Civil Revision No.10 of 2022 which has been allowed and as a consequence, the application for substitution has been rejected and the matter stands abated.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the original plaintiff had died and there was no serious dispute to the fact that the petitioners were the second cousin of Budhai, they were both the legal heirs and were entitled to carry the suit forward for trial to be taken to its logical conclusion and in such circumstances, the suit could not have been abated and the exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional court is patently erroneous.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks, time to file counter affidavit with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioners who may if so choose may file his response within ten days thereafter.

List on 18.11.2025.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

September 25, 2025

Harshita

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench