Allowed

Radhika Prasad v. Dinesh Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2024WP227/132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff challenged a trial court order that allowed their substitution application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC but erroneously directed the defendants to implead the heirs in the cause title. The High Court, with respondents' consent, modified the last two lines to read 'plaintiff' instead of 'defendants' and allowed the writ petition to that extent.

What the court decided

AI extract

Radhika Prasad Vs Dinesh Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (227) No. 132 of 2024

¶5

Radhika Prasad, son of late Uday Bihari, aged about 50 years,

¶6

Ashoki Bai daughter of late Uday Bihari, aged about 45 years, W/o Heera Sai,

¶7

Dhaneshwari, daughter of late Uday Bihari, aged about 42 years, wife of Keshav,

¶8

Panna Bai daughter of late Uday Bihari, aged about 40 years, wife of Feku Ram,

¶9

All are by Caste – Rajwar, resident of Badkapara, Surajpur, P.S., Tahsil & District – Surajpur (C.G.)

¶10

---- Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶11

Versus

¶12

Dinesh Kumar, son of late Satanand, aged about 55 years, Caste-Kosariya, resident of Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S., Tahsil & District- Surajpur (C.G.)

¶13

Vinod Kumar, son of late Satanand, aged about 50 years, (now dead) through LRs.

¶14

2 (a) Vishal Kosariya, son of late Vinod Kumar Kosariya,

¶15

(b) Ritvik Kosariya, son of late Vinod Kumar Kosariya,

¶16

¶17

2(a) to (c) are resident of Village – Surajpur, P.S., Tahsil & District - Surajpur (C.G.)

¶18

Ramanand, S/o Gokul Prasad (dead) through LRs.

¶19

3(a) Kamlesh Kosariya, son of Ramanand,

¶20

(b) Mahesh Kumar, son of Ramanand,

¶21

Both are resident of Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, DistrictSurajpur (C.G.)

¶22

¶23

¶24

years, Caste – Kosariya, R/o Shankargarh, DistrictBalrampur (C.G.)

¶25

(d) Gangotri, D/o late Ramanand, W/o Harishankar Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Bhatthapara, Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Disrict – Korea (C.G.)

¶26

(e) Geeta, D/o late Ramanand, W/o Jeeturam, aged about 30 years, R/o Junapara, Baikunthpur, P.S. & TahsilBaikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.)

¶27

(f) Mandakani, W/o late Santosh Verma, D/o Ramanand, aged about 26 years, R/o Main Road, Umariya, District – Umariya (M.P.)

¶28

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Surajpur (C.G.)

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1, 2(a) to 2(c) & 3(a) to 3(c)

¶31

: Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate.

¶32

For Res.No. 4/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer.

¶33

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶34

Order On Board

¶35

09-04-2024

¶36

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶37

2. Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner/plaintiffs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned First Civil Judge, Class-I, Surajpur in Civil Suit No.141-A/2017, by which, the application under Order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-11) filed by petitioners/plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of original plaintiff – late

¶38

¶39

Uday Bihari was allowed by the trial Court, but directed the respondents /defendants to substitute the legal heirs of original plaintiff Late Uday Bihari in the cause title of the plaint.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners, who are legal heirs of original plaintiff late Uday Bihari and the said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court, but in last two lines of the impugned order dated 11.01.2024, instead of plaintiff, defendant has been mentioned, therefore, last two lines of the impugned order may be modified accordingly.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2(a) to 2(c) & 3(a) to 3(c) conceded the submission made by counsel for the petitioners/plaintiff.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶43

Since application under Order 22, Rule 9 of the CPC was filed by legal heirs of original plaintiff – Uday Bihari, which was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.01.2024, hence, learned trial Court ought to have directed legal heirs of original plaintiff – Uday Bihari to make amendment in the civil suit by impleading their names in the original civil suit, but such direction has been given to the defendant, instead of plaintiff, which is also conceded by learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2(a) to 2(c) & 3(a) to 3(c), therefore,

¶44

¶45

last two lines of order impugned dated 11.1.2024 is modified to the

¶46

extent that instead of defendants, plaintiff be read, as below :-

¶47

“……... oknhx.k dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fof/kor uke la’kksf/kr dj izekf.kr djkosa, izdj.k iwoZor~ lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k tkrk gS A

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated

¶49

hereinabove.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶52

Amit/

¶53

Radhika Prasad v. Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Radhika Prasad v. Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash @ Sidhu Kotwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chief Municipal Officer. Vs Madhav Sharaf

Praveen Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Vs Hemant Patel

Chetan Prasad Dewangan Vs Ramlal Dewangan

Pushpendra Kumar Deepankan Vs Charubala Deepankan