Kamal Singh Vs Sukhdev

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 1236 of 2025

¶6

1 - Kamal Singh S/o Late Nakul Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Mongrapara, Tehsil Bastar (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Sukhdev S/o Late Nakul, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Plaintiff No. 2

¶10

2 - Semalram S/o Late Nakul, Aged About 50 Years (Died) R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Plaintiff No. 3

¶11

3 - Ramesh S/o Late Nakul, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Plaintiff No. 4

¶12

4 - Sita Ram S/o Late Ramnath, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 1

¶13

5 - Rameshwar S/o. Late Ramnath, Aged About 48 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 2

¶14

6 - Smt. Gori W/o. Late Dhaneshwar, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 3

¶15

7 - Sham Kumar S/o. Late Ramnath, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village

¶16

2

¶17

Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 4

¶18

8 - Smt. Tula W/o. Late Ramnath, Aged About 70 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 5

¶19

9 - Ranchala D/o. Late Ramnath, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 6

¶20

10 - Chanchala D/o. Late Ramnath, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 7

¶21

11 - Kamla D/o. Lambodar, (Since Died Through Legal Heirs)......Defendant No. 8

¶22

11.1 - Kamal Sai S/o Kamla R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶23

11.2 - Raibati D/o Kamla R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶24

11.3 - Hembati D/o Kamla R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶25

11.4 - Subhadra D/o Kamla R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶26

12 - Vimla D/o. Lambodar, Aged About 63 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 9

¶27

13 - Nirvati D/o. Lambodar, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 10

¶28

14 - Gangadhar S/o. Late Gajadhar, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village

¶29

3

¶30

Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 11

¶31

15 - Gonchu S/o. Late Gajadhar, (Since Died Through Legal Heirs).......Defendant No. 12

¶32

15.1 - Sukhdei W/o Late Gonchu R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶33

16 - Vidya D/o. Late Gajadhar, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 13

¶34

17 - Damodar S/o Late Gajadhar, Aged About 42 Years (Died Application Under Order 22 Rule 4 Of Cpc Has Been Dismissed By The Impugned Order) R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No.14

¶35

18 - Sudru S/o. Late Gabru, Aged About 52 Years (Since Died Through Legal Heirs) R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No.15

¶36

19 - Sukhram S/o Late Gabru, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 16

¶37

20 - Dhaniram S/o. Late Dayaram, Aged About 26 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 17

¶38

21 - Narayan S/o. Late Gabru Aged About 34 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 18

¶39

22 - Haldhar @ Nara S/o Late Yatni, Aged About 55 Years (Deleted) R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 19

¶40

4

¶41

23 - Smt. Shanti Wd/o Mahadev, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 20

¶42

24 - Somaru S/o. Late Bali, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 21

¶43

25 - Smt. Neela W/o. Late Dharmu, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 22

¶44

26 - Lakhiram S/o. Late Dharmu, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 23

¶45

27 - Beenuram S/o. Late Dharmu, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No.24

¶46

28 - Damru S/o. Late Dharmu, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 25

¶47

29 - Hariram S/o. Late Arjun, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 26

¶48

30 - Smt. Saradi Wd/o Sahadev Aged About 58 Years R/o. Village Mongrapal, Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.).......Defendant No. 27

¶49

31 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Office Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.)........Defendant No. 28

¶50

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents No.25 to	: Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsiyan,
28 & 30	Advocate
For Respondent No.31	: Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Advocate
None for the other Respon	dents despite of service of Notice to them

¶51

5

¶52

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶53

Order on Board

¶54

05/02/2026

¶55

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned First Civil Judge (Senior Grade), Bastar, at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No. 65A/2018, by the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was rejected.

¶56

Facts of the case :- During the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff came to know that Defendant No. 14, namely Damodar, had already expired, whereupon they promptly filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court for bringing the legal heirs of Defendant No. 14 on record. In the said application dated 22.07.2025, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the factum of death of Defendant No. 14 came to their knowledge only when the counsel appearing for Defendant No. 14 disclosed the same on the previous date of hearing, and that there was no prior communication between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 14, leaving no occasion for them to have knowledge of his death earlier. Despite these specific pleadings, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 29.09.2025, dismissed the application in a mechanical manner without considering the merits of the case. Notably, while observing that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were able to ascertain the date of death of Defendant No. 14, thereby

¶57

6

¶58

acknowledging the plaintiff’ lack of prior knowledge, the learned Trial Court nonetheless erroneously concluded that the application was filed to cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings. In fact, Defendant No. 14 was a necessary party, and the impleadment of his legal heirs is essential for the effective and proper adjudication of the civil suit.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that a civil suit for declaration of title, declaration of confirmation of possession, and declaration of share in respect of the suit property, as described in the plaint, has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Defendant No. 14, namely Damodar S/o Gajadhar, passed away, whereupon an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed to bring the legal representatives of Defendant No. 14 on record; however, the same was rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC ought to have been filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; however, inadvertently, the same could not be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the civil suit has been pending since August, 2008 and that the plaintiff were unnecessarily delaying the proceedings by filing a redundant application despite having knowledge of the death of Defendant No. 14. It was further held that the application was not filed promptly, and accordingly,

¶60

7

¶61

the same was rejected with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. In order to advance the cause of justice, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be granted liberty to move appropriate applications under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶62

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner/plaintiff were already aware of the death of Defendant No. 14 prior to filing of the suit; therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶63

I have heard counsel for the parties and peruse the documents available on record.

¶64

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff were aware of the death of Defendant No. 14 and that they filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the plaintiff were required to file an application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which admittedly were not filed.

¶65

Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned First Civil Judge (Senior Grade), Bastar, at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No. 65A/2018, is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil

¶66

8

¶67

Procedure for bringing the legal representatives of Defendant No. 14 on record, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the concerned Trial Court on or before the next date fixed for hearing of the said case.

¶68

Let a copy of this order along with the original records, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

¶69

In the result, the petition is allowed.

¶70

CC as per rules.

¶71

Sd/- ({ Sachin Singh Rajput }) JUDGE

¶72

Saxena

Kamal Singh v. Sukhdev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh v. Sukhdev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Sao Vs Smt. Osho Devi - Dead. through Lrs.

Shrenik Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swaraj Baghel Vs Smt. Manorama Baghel

Kanwal Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juhi Women Self Help Group Ranka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxman Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh