Manmohan Balkrishna Jhunjhunwala and Ors. vs Anita Vijay Jhunjhunwala and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manmohan Balkrishna Jhunjhunwala and Ors. vs Anita Vijay Jhunjhunwala and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order. Clarification issued that the impugned order does not determine substantive rights and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by its observations at final adjudication; City Civil Court requested to hear and decide Suit No. 2312/2012 expeditiously, with parties to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants in Chamber Summons No. 743 of 2016 are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, such that the Trial Court's order allowing their impleadment calls for interference. +1 more

Court's answer

The enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC is by its very nature summary, with the object of determining who should be permitted to represent the estate of a deceased party.

Ratio / Principle

The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order allowing the Chamber Summons impleading the applicants as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

Key takeaways

The remit of an order under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC is limited to determining who is the legal representative of the deceased party, and such determination can never take the character of a determination of the substantive rights of the parties.ratio¶21
The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations in the impugned order while determining the substantive rights of the parties at the time of final adjudication of the suit.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.) declines to interfere with the order dated 30th October 2023 allowing Chamber Summons No. 743 of 2016, by which respondent nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as legal representatives of the original plaintiff (who died on 14th March 2016) after an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Holds that such an enquiry is summary in nature, confined to determining who may represent the estate of a deceased party, and that an order under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC cannot determine the substantive rights of the parties; directs that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations in the impugned order at the final adjudication of Suit No. 2312/2012 (instituted 2012, City Civil Court), and requests expedition of the suit.

5-wp-9677-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.9677 OF 2024

Manmohan Balkrishna … Petitioner Jhunjhunwala and Ors. V/s. Anita Vijay Jhunjhunwala and Anr … Respondents

Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Aneesh Deshpande, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Singh with Mr. Ranjan Mishra, for the respondents.

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2025.04.25 11:10:14 +0530

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 23RD APRIL 2025.

PC:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 30^th October 2023, whereby the Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No. 743 of 2016, taken out by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to implead them as legal representatives of the original plaintiff who passed away on 14^th March 2016, came to be allowed.

Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that, the Trial Court had cast burden on the defendants to establish the negative i.e. the applicant No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased plaintiff. An endeavour was also

1 of 3

varsha

5-wp-9677-2024.doc

made to show that, the Trial Court could not have relied on the documents to draw an inference that the applicants were entitled to represent the estate of the deceased plaintiff. Mr. Dhakephalkar further submitted that the learned Judge has also made observations which bear upon the substantive rights of the parties and cause grave prejudice to the petitioners.

I have perused the impugned order. The said order was passed to decide the question as to whether the applicants in the Chamber Summons were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The trial Court had conducted enquiry as envisaged by Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By its very nature, the said enquiry is summary and with the object of determining as to who should be permitted to represent the estate of a deceased party.

The Court, thus, does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

So far as the submission of Mr. Dhakephalkar that, the impugned order partakes the character of the determination of the substantive rights of the parties, it would be suffice to clarify that the remit of an order passed under Order XXII Rule 5 of the C.P.C is limited to the determination of the question as to who is the legal representative of the deceased party. The determination of the said question can never take the character of determination of the substantive rights of the partes. Thus, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations in the impugned order while determining the substantive rights of the party at the time of final adjudication of the suit.

2 of 3

varsha

5-wp-9677-2024.doc

Since the suit has been instituted in the year 2012, the learned Judge, City Civil Court seized with Suit No. 2312/2012 is requested to hear and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

The parties shall co-operate with the Court in the expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J)

3 of 3

varsha