Dhan Singh Mahto And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

(i) Panchami Devi @ Panchami Mundain, W/o Late Ghasu Munda, R/O Village- Tau, PO+ PS-Bundu, Dist. - Ranchi, At present, Dumma Road, Bundu, Near over-bridge, P.O. + P.S.- Bundu, Dist.- Ranchi ........... Respondents

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Harsh , Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG- IA For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Trivedi , Adv.

¶17

P R E S E N T

¶18

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶19

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶20

This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010.

¶21

2

¶22

W.P. (C.). No. 4712 of 2017

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though writ petitioners challenged the said orders on several grounds but learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners confine to the only ground that the impugned order dated 12.06.2017 passed by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010 is a nullity and the same has been passed in favour of a dead person namely Durga Mani Mundain. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the undisputed fact is that Durga Mani Mundain died on 15.02.2016 during the pendency of SAR Revision no. 61 of 2010 but the respondent no. 5(i) suppressed the fact of death of Durga Mani Mundain before the SAR court, resulting in the said order dated 12.06.2017 passed by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010 in favour of a dead person.

¶24

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union Of India vs Ram Charan Through his legal Representatives reported in (1964) 3 SCR 467 , para 10 and 11 of which reads as under:-

¶25

“10. It is not necessary to consider whether the High Court applied its earlier Full Bench decision correctly or not when we are to decide the main question urged in this appeal and that being the first contention. Rules 3 and 4 of Order 22 CPC lay down respectively the procedure to be followed in case of death of one of several plaintiffs when the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiffs alone or that of the sole plaintiff when the right to sue survives or of the death of one several defendants or of sole defendant in similar circumstances. The procedure requires an application for the making of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant a party to the suit. It does not say who is to present the application. Ordinarily it would be the plaintiff as by the abatement of the suit the defendant stand to gain. However, an application is necessary to be made for the purpose. If no such application is made within the time allowed by law, the suit abates so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned or as against the deceased defendant. The effect of such an abatement on the suit of the surviving plaintiffs or the suit against the surviving defendants depends on other considerations as held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SCR 89] and Jhandha Singh v. Gurmukh Singh [ CA No. 344 of 1956 decided on April 10, 1962] . Any way, that question does not arise in this case as the sole respondent had died.

¶26

11. It may be mentioned that in view of Rule 11 Order 22 the words “plaintiff”, defendant” and “suit” in that order include “appellant”, “respondent” and “appeal” respectively.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the burden of the respondent no. 5(i) to intimate the SAR court about the death of Durga Mani Mundain, and having not done so, SAR Revision no. 61 of 2010 ought to have abated, hence, it is

¶28

3

¶29

W.P. (C.). No. 4712 of 2017

¶30

submitted that the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010 be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents, do not dispute that the Durga Mani Mundain died on 15.02.2016 but it is submitted that inadvertently, the respondents being rustic persons, could not bring this fact of death of Durga Mani Mundain to the notice of the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi but they had no intention to suppress this fact, hence, it is submitted that writ petition, being without any merit be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishun @

¶33

Ram Kishun (Dead) LRS v. Behari (Dead) Through LRs

¶34

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 300, para 6 of which reads as under :-

¶35

“6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants and fairly agreed to by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the decree passed by the High Court in favour of a party who was dead and against a party who was dead, is obviously a nullity. It is conceded that the legal representatives of neither of the parties were brought on record in the second appeal and the second appeal stood abated. On this short ground this appeal is liable to be allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶36

that the decree passed in favour of a party and against a party, who was dead, is obviously a nullity, hence, in view of the undisputed fact that Durga Mani Mundain died on 15.02.2016, much before the final order in the revision, having been passed about more than one year and three months, thereafter, on 12.06.2017 without taking into consideration the fact that the Durga Mani Mundain is already dead, hence, the same is certainly a nullity, hence this writ petition is disposed of by holding that the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 61 of 2010 is a nullity.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶38

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 9^th January, 2024 Smita /AFR

Dhan Singh Mahto And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Singh Mahto And Ors. v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Sahal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Champa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prerna Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gajendra Bahadur Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nitish Kumar Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shree Narayan Singh Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department