IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 5202 of 2025 GAURI GRIH NAIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT BHOPAL Versus LATE SHRI NARAYAN PRASAD MISHRA Appearance:

Shri Devraj Vishwakarma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order dated

19.05.2025 passed by the M.P. State Corporative Tribunal in S.A. No.26/2022, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the present petitioner by holding the same as abated.

2. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against Narayan Prasad Mishra. During pendency of the appeal, Narayan Prasad Mishra died on 30.03.2023 and intimation of his death was given before the Tribunal on 10.08.2023. The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal on 25.01.2024 that the counsel who was earlier appearing for the deceased respondent Narayan Prasad Mishra may intimate the names of legal representatives of Narayan Prasad Mishra because the petitioner society could not get knowledge of the legal representatives of Narayan Prasad Mishra. The said application remained pending before the Tribunal and no names of legal representatives were disclosed by counsel who was earlier appearing for Narayan Prasad Mishra. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application on 19.05.2025 before the Tribunal that one Radharaman Sharma has filed a copy of will before the society intimating that he has succeeded on the estate of Narayan Prasad Mishra on the basis of will and the society does not believe the said will and, therefore, appropriate orders be passed by issuing notices to Radharaman Sharma so that the Tribunal can be appraised of the correct facts that whether Radharaman Sharma has succeeded the estate by way of will. Another application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal under Order 22 Rule 4A CPC that since there are no known legal heirs of Narayan Prasad Mishra, therefore, the Court should proceed under Order 22 Rule 4A CPC which provides for procedure where no legal representatives of the deceased party are there.

3. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 has refused to issue notice to Radharaman Sharma but has held the appeal to have been abated because no action has been taken for impleadment of legal representatives of deceased respondent Narayan Prasad Mishra.

4. The counsel for the respondent, while opposing the petition, has argued that subsequently under orders of the Deputy Registrar, the name of petitioner has been entered in the society as member in place of Narayan Prasad Mishra and, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the order of the Tribunal.

5. Upon hearing the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Binod Pathak Vs. Shankar Choudhary, 2025 SCC Online SC 1411, has held as under:-

"60. Rule 10A of Order XXII, as inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976 imposes an obligation on the pleader appearing for the party to intimate death of his client to the court. But there is difference of opinion as to whether the duty imposed on the pleader is confined to factum of death of a party or also to furnish names and particulars of legal representatives.

61. According to one view, there is no obligation on the pleader appearing on behalf of the deceased party to furnish or supply list of legal representatives of the deceased.

62. According to the other view, however, the pleader has not only to inform the court as to death of the party but he must also furnish particulars of legal representatives.

63. However, we are of the view that providing merely an information with regard to the fact of death is not sufficient compliance of the Rule 10A of the CPC unless and until the counsel furnishes the information with regard to the details of the persons on whom and against whom the right to sue survives and the information under Rule 10A