High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a revision filed by Alok Jaiswal against an order allowing respondents to substitute their names as legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff under Section 151 CPC, holding it had no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CR No. 10 of 2020
Alok Jaiswal S/o Late Kannilal Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o Ramanujganj Road, (Wrongly Mentioned Sadar Road, Near Saptahik Bajar In Impugned Order). Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Office Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
2
Naka (Fundurdihari), Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Office Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3
---- Respondents
For the Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
12.08.2022
4
plaintiff from the said land. It was also alleged that the plaintiff got demarcation of his land and after obtaining the demarcation report he had filed an application before the Tehsildar Ambikapur for handing over of the subject land from the defendant. Since nothing happened on his application for about three years, he had filed a civil suit. Defendant No.1 – Ramdev Jaiswal filed a written statement denying the alleged encroachment. It is stated therein that his brother late Kannilal Jaiswal established the said factory and he run the said factory in his lifetime. After the death of Kannilal Jaiswal, his son Alok Jaiswal (petitioner herein) started running the said factory. It is next submitted that the defendant had never been in possession of the subject land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5
were brought on record. After passing of order dated 01.03.2016, the Civil Suit got reopened and it is pending before the trial Court vide Civil Suit No.46A/2016.
6
bringing the legal heirs on record belatedly and neither filed any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The inherent powers cannot be invoked under Section 151 of CPC to avail remedy where there is already specific provision in Law for the said remedy, so learned counsel prays to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order.
7
reopened, in which such application under Section 151 CPC filed, so this Court does not find any such error which affects the case or prejudice the petitioner/defendant.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
yasmin
3 issues framed by the court
Whether inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be invoked to substitute legal heirs when specific provisions under Order 22 exist.
Whether the High Court erred in allowing substitution of legal representatives after the expiry of the period under Order 22 Rule 3.
Whether the revision deserves dismissal due to lack of merit and absence of prejudice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private LimitedReferred¶46
SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and ors. (2019 123 SCC 210) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Alok Jaiswal
Nagendranath Dubey
Dheerendranath Dubey
Alok Dubey
Rajendranath Dubey
Ashish Dubey
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
