CMP filed to quash order allowing substitution of legal heirs in a title suit. Court dismissed the challenge, holding the-impealed heirs as necessary parties and finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
CMP No. 203 of 2020 dismissed as devoid of 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 203 of 2020 Chandra Bhushan Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus Annpurna Devi & Ors. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kr. No.4, Advocate Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) :
06/14.11.2022 . The instant CMP has been filed to set aside the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) II, Dumka, in T.S. No.74 of 2005 whereby the learned court below was pleased to allow the petition dated 04.12.2019 filed by the plaintiff(s)/ Opp. Party(s) under Order XXII Rule 4/9 of the CPC for substitution of Sarda Devi, Kusum Devi and Mina Devi being the legal heirs of Bhogmani Devi (Defendant No.1) who died non 11.09.2017.
The plaintiffs/ opp. Parties have filed the aforesaid Title Suit for a decree declaring right, title and interest over the property and also to declare the sale deed of the said property as null and void.
The petitioner [Chandra Bhushan Singh] is the son of defendant no.1 [Bhogmani Devi] who died non 11.09.2017 and when the plaintiff(s) came to know about death of defendant no.1, they filed a petition under Order I Rule 9 CPC for deletion of her name which was allowed vide order dated 17.11.2018.
It is submitted that after more than 2 years of death of defendant no.1, the plaintiff(s) filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC for substitution of Sarda Devi, Kusum Devi and Mina Devi legal heirs of Bhogmani Devi (Defendant No.1) when her name has already been deleted from the array of the defendant(s) vide order dated 17.11.2019.
The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the information of death of defendant no.1 [Bhogmani Devi] was given on 05.10.2018 and the suit has abated against the said defendants and the substitution petition has been allowed after 2 years being barred by limitation.
Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the materials available on record, I do not find any merit in the instant CMP as the parties impleaded are necessary party, being heir and descendant of defendant no. 1. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the instant CMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
Sandeep/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the substitution of legal heirs was barred by limitation given the delay after the death of the original.
Whether the impleaded parties were necessary parties despite the potential abatement of the suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandra Bhushan Singh
Annpurna Devi
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
