Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Shiv Nath - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 17 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 55243 OF 2016.
Decided On : 24-04-2023
For the Petitioner: Ram Jeet Mishra
For the Respondent: Man Mohan Singh, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, Manish, Manoj Kumar Yadav
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XXII - Substitution of parties - Applications for substitution of deceased respondents in pending litigation were allowed, setting aside abatement and directing necessary amendments in arrays of parties. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, 29, 30)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - Power of review in statutory contexts - Clarified that while the power to review is typically statutory, the court highlighted that errors apparent on the record might warrant review under specific statutory provisions. (Paras 67, 68, 70)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition involved various parties in a land partition dispute, with multiple respondents having died during litigation. Substitution applications were filed for their heirs, and issues of review of previous orders were raised.
Findings of Court:
The court maintained that errors apparent on the record do not prevent review where substantive justice is at stake.
Issues: The key issues involved substitution of parties due to death and the review of prior orders based on new circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that substitution is necessary for the rightful administration of justice, and review powers exist to correct manifest errors in prior orders.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; permissions for substitutions and further proceedings granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substitution of deceased parties allowed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. substitution of respondent no. 9 allowed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. substitution of respondent no. 15 allowed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. substitution of respondent no. 8 allowed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. substitution of respondent no. 5 allowed. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 6. substitution of respondent no. 16 allowed. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 7. delay condoned in filing applications. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 8. substitution of sole petitioner allowed. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 9. final decision on writ petition. (Para 56 , 57) |
| 10. review application context and admissions. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 11. legal arguments by parties regarding review. (Para 64 , 65) |
| 12. preliminary decree context and implications. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 13. writ petition dismissed on procedural grounds. (Para 70) |
| 14. partition proceedings revived and evidence allowed. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
Ref: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 5 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This application has been filed seeking permission to bring on record heirs/legal representatives of respondent No.4, Rama, who has died pending litigation.
3. Considering the provisions of Order XXII of Code of Civil Procedure read with Chapter VIII Rule 38-A of High Court Rules, 1952, the application is allowed.
4. Abatement, if any, is set aside.
5. Office is directed to incorporate necessary substitution in the array of the parties.
Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 6 of 2018
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Cause for delay in filing the substitution application/recall application/restoration application, has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
8. Taking a liberal view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.
9. The application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
Ref: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 7 of 2018
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. This application has been filed seeking permission to bring on record heirs/legal representatives of respondent No. 9 Shwami Nath, who has died pending litigation.
12. Considering the provisions of Order XXII of Code of Civil Procedure read with Chapter VIII Rule 38-A of High Court Rules, 1952, the application is allowed.
13. Abatement, if any, is set aside.
14. Office is directed to incorporate necessary substitution in the array of the parties.
Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 8 of 2018
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
16. Cause for delay in filing the substitution application/recall application/restoration application, has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
17. Taking a liberal view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.
18. The application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
Ref: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 9 of 2018
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
20. This application has been filed seeking permission to bring on record heirs/legal representatives of respondent No. 15, Mizzu, who has died pending litigation.
21. Considering the provisions of Order XXII of Code of Civil Procedure read with Chapter VIII Rule 38-A of High Court Rules, 1952, the application is allowed.
22. Abatement, if any, is set aside.
23. Office is directed to incorporate necessary substitution in the array of the parties.
Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 10 of 2018
24. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
25. Cause for delay in filing the substitution application/recall application/restoration application, has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
26. Taking a liberal view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.
27. The application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
Ref: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 11 of 2018
28. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
29. This applicati
