CAV ORDER

Heard.

1. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2017, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit before the learned Family Court for declaration that she is legally-wedded wife of late Naveen Kumar Singh. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that earlier there had been a civil suit contested between the petitioner and late Naveen Kumar Singh and others i.e. Civil Suit No.10A of 2006. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Late Naveen Kumar Singh preferred F.A. No. 177 of 2008 and during the pendency of this appeal, Naveen Kumar Singh has expired. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 prayed for impleadment as legal representative of late Naveen Kumar Singh, which was challenged by the petitioner. Learned High Court directed the matter for enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, by the District Judge, Raipur, who conducted the enquiry and held by the order dated 4.5.2012 that respondent No.1 has failed to prove that she is the wife of late Naveen Kumar Singh. This report was accepted by the High Court and the application of respondent No.1 for impleadment as legal representative of late Naveen Kumar Singh was dismissed by order dated 23.7.2012 in F.A. No. 177 of 2008. Respondent No.1 then preferred a special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, which has also been dismissed by order dated 19.10.2012. Respondent No.1 then filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 praying for issuance of succession certificate for receiving the amount deposited in bank account of late Naveen Kumar Singh. The petitioner had filed an objection to her claim. Learned Court below by order dated 4.7.2015 has held that respondent No.1 is not the legally-wedded wife of late Naveen Kumar Singh and dismissed the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. It is subsequent to these proceedings, the civil suit had been filed in the Family Court.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the issue regarding the entitlement of respondent No.1 being a legal representative of late Naveen Kumar Singh has already been decided in the various litigations and secondly, proper valuation has not been made and proper Court fees has not been paid, therefore, the plaint of respondent No.1 was fit to be rejected. The suit filed is also barred by limitation as any suit could have been brought only within three years from the date the cause of action has arisen which is also one of the ground on which, the plaint should have been rejected by the learned Family Court. Hence, the impugned order suffers from grave infirmity and it is prayed that the petition be allowed, the impugned order be quashed and the plaint filed by respondent No.1 be rejected.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and Ors. vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 764.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the decision of the Court under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC is a decision made on the enquiry which is a summary procedure, therefore, the filing of civil suit is not barred. The civil suit has been filed by respondent No.1 on this basis that she was legally- wedded wife of late Naveen Kumar Singh and such an opportunity had not been available to her on previous occasions. It is also submitted that the suit has been valued properly and proper Court fees has been paid.

Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal vs. Krishna Bansal and Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 162, it is submitted that it is now well settled that determination of the question as to who i