Dismissed

Smt. Punai Bai v. Kartikram

Chhattisgarh HC12 Nov 2024WP227/145/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a trial court decision that permitted legal heirs of a deceased defendant to file a written statement but barred them from raising pleas contrary to the original defense filed before the deceased's death.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed; the impugned order of the trial court is upheld.

Smt. Punai Bai Vs Kartikram — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:44305

¶3

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.11.18 10:35:58 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WP227 No. 145 of 2022

¶7

1 - Smt. Punai Bai W/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 50 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Kaushal S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 38 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tarun S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 34 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Ramesh S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 40 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Ashok S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 22 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶11

6 - Virendra S/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 18 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶12

7 - Sonkunwar D/o Late Shri Kamta Prasad Aged About 38 Years Residence Of Village Pathariya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners.

¶13

Versus

¶14

1 - Kartikram S/o Shri Ramdas Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Chhuiya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - Dhaniram S/o Mehattar Aged About 50 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Chhuiya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶16

3 - Smt. Agan Bai W/o Padum Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bharatpur , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶17

4 - Smt. Sukhwara Bai W/o Shri Bhuru Aged About 52 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devarbod , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶18

5 - Smt. Terabai W/o Shri Gendram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Arjuni , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Janki Bai D/o Shri Chheduram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chhuiya , Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Balodabajar , District Balodabajar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶21

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	:	Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Res No.7/State	:	Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA.

¶22

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶23

13.11.2024

¶24

This petition has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilagarh (CG) in Civil Suit No.2-A/2017, whereby, application preferred by the petitioners (LRs of defendant No.5) under Order 22 Rule 4 (2) of the CPC was partly allowed and they have been permitted to file written statement, however, the trial Court has restrained them from taking plea contrary to the stand taken by the defendant late Kamta Prasad in written statement dated 17.05.2018.

¶25

Necessary facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has preferred a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of subject property situated at Bilaigarh. It is alleged that said property was received in exchange with the defendant and it was originally belonged to Kunjram, Uderam and Sakharam. The petitioners are the legal heirs of defendant No.5. In the said suit, earlier defendant No.5 has filed written statement on 17.05.2018 and supported the version made in the plaint. After his death, the petitioner/legal heirs of defendant No.5 filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 (2) of the CPC alleging that the plaintiff has hatched a conspiracy and obtained signature of defendant No.5 in the said written statement in fraudulent manner and requested for permission to file written

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

statement in their defence. The trial Court considering the said application granted permission to file written statement, however, restrained them from taking plea contrary to the stand made in the written statement filed by defendant No.5 – late Kamta Prasad on 17.05.2018.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has committed grave error in restraining the petitioners from making contrary submission and such order is bad in law in terms of provision contained under Order 22 Rule 4 (2) of the CPC which enables any party to make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumtibai and Ors Vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) & Ors in Appeal (Civil) No.117/2001 on 04.10.2007. He prays to quash the impugned order and to pass suitable order in favour of the petitioners.

¶29

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supports the order impugned and draws attention towards Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. He would submit that there are fundamental differences between both provisions. He submits that if the substituted defendant is allowed to step into the shoes of the original defendant, then the substituted defendant would not have any independent right to file fresh written statement contrary to the statement filed earlier. He would submit the case on which petitioner’s counsel has placed reliance is distinguishable on facts as in the said case the legal representative was co-owner of the purchased property and property was purchased in the joint name of the

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

deceased/plaintiff and proposed legal representative. He submits that this petition has no merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed with the petition.

¶33

The scope of Order 22 Rule 4 (2) of the CPC is explicit in nature. The legal representatives of the deceased, if desires for setting up their own independent title or case, they may file a separate suit or file an independent application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The sub rule 2 of Rule 4 of the Order 22 of the CPC authorized the legal representative of the deceased defendant to file written statement or statement of objection raising all pleas which the deceased defendant had except those which were personal to the deceased defendant. Further, when the deceased defendant has already filed the written statement, the substituted defendant who merely stepped into the shoes of the original defendant would not have any independent right to file any fresh written statement contrary to their pleading.

¶34

In view of the discussion made herein-above, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and same does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶38

Ajay

Smt. Punai Bai v. Kartikram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Punai Bai v. Kartikram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Kumar Tiwari Vs Taiyyab Khokhar

Ksk Mahanadi Power Company Limited Vs Bijulmati Gond

Parmanand Vs Kamla Bai

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Smt. Anita Upadhyay Vs Smt. Vilay Laxmi