Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 79
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Manjeet Bhalla (Smt.) v. State of M.P.
Review Petition No. 1365 of 2024 (G); Decided on 13.3.2025
N.K. Gupta with Purushottam Rai and Prakhar Dhengula for petitioners; Anil Kumar Shrivastava for respondent No. 4; B.M. Patel, Government Advocate for respondents/State; Suraj Bhan Lodhi for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Headnote:
Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 and O. 47 R. 1 -- rejection of plaint -- civil suit instituted against dead person -- not maintainable -- plaint rightly rejected by trial Court at threshold -- order of high Court in first appeal setting aside such rejection order not supported by any reasons -- judgment passed in first appeal recalled and appeal restored. 2021 SCC Online SC 1142 followed. (2005) 4 SCC 741 and (2020) 7 SCC 366 referred to. [Paras 9 & 13 to 18]
flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11 rFkk vk- 47 fu- 1 & okni= dh ukeatwjh & flfoy okn e`r O;fä d¢ fo#) lafLFkr & pyus ;¨X; ugÈ & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okni= çkjaÒ esa gh Bhd ukeatwj fd;k x;k & bl ukeatwjh vkns'k d¨ çFke vihy esa vikLr djus okyk mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fdUgÈ Òh dkj.k¨a }kjk lefFkZr ugÈ & çFke vihy esa ikfjr fu.kZ; okil fy;k x;k rFkk vihy çR;kofrZr dh xbZA 2021 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,llh 1142 vuqlfjrA ¼2005½ 4 ,llhlh 741 rFkk ¼2020½ 7 ,llhlh 366 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 13 ls 18½
ORDER
1. This review application has been filed under Order 47 rule 1 of C.P.C. against the judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in F.A.No.64/2020 by which the order dated 12.10.2019 passed by Sixteenth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.75-A/2015 was set aside.
2. Since, the Hon'ble Judge who has passed the order under review has demitted his office, therefore, this review petition has been placed before this Court.
3. A civil suit was filed by State of M.P. and by order dated 12.10.2019 passed by Sixteenth ADJ, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.75-A/2015 the application filed under Order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. was allowed and the plaint was rejected. Challenging the said order, first appeal was filed by the State, which was registered as F.A.No.64/2020 and by the judgment under review, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 12.10.2019 and remanded the matter back for trial.
4. Challenging the order passed in F.A.No.64/2020, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that when there is an error apparent on the face of record and if the same is necessitated on account of some mistakes or for any sufficient reason, this Court can exercise its power under Order 47 rule 1 of C.P.C. It is submitted that not only the suit was filed against a dead person but Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the first appeal has not given any finding as to how the reasoning assigned by the trial Court was erroneous and thus, it is submitted that it is a mistake and it can be treated as an error apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that reasons are the backbone of order and only from the reasons it can be deciphered that what was going on in the mind of the Judge or the authorities. In absence of reasons, the litigant who has adversely affected would not come to know the reasons for losing the case.
5. Furthermore, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not give any reasons to show that why suit was not barred and why the plaint should not have been rejected.
6. To buttress the aforesaid submission, counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. By relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another v. Netaji Cricket Club and Others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741 .
7. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.4 that respondent No.1 filed a civil suit by impleading Shiv Singh Temak as defendant No.5 and respondents No.4.1 to 4.4 are legal representatives of late Shiv Singh Temak. Shiv Singh Temak had already expired on 18.12.1982 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 2011. Thus, the suit was filed against a dead person. In order to support his contention that predecessor in title Shiv Singh Temak had expired on 18.12.1982, counsel for respondents No.4.1 to 4.4 has relied upon Panchnama which was filed by respondent No.1 alongwith I.A.No.2159/2022 filed under Order 22 rule 4 of C.P.C. in F.A.No.64/2020. It is also submitted that when Shiv Singh Temak had already expired, then there was no question of service of plaint. However, Shiv Singh Temak was proceeded ex-parte by trial Court, therefore, it appears that some fake acknowledgement of receipt of notice must have been received back by trial Court. A surprise was expressed by Shri Shrivastava that how a dead person can be served and who can serve the notice also.
8. Heard the learned counsel for parties with regard to impleadment of dead person.
9. One thing is clear that Shiv Singh Temak had expired on 18.12.1982 and, therefore, a civil suit was filed against a dead person and thus, the civil suit itself was not maintainable. This important aspect of the matter had escaped from the notice of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding
10. So far as non-assignme
