Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 109 (CHH)

SURENDRA SINGH v. MANGLURAM DEWANGAN

2008-04-15

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2008
ORDER 1. In this Misc. Appeal, the following questions arise for determination: "(A) Whether an order dismissing the suit as having been abated for non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff after a summary enquiry as contemplated by Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. is appealable? . (B) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in setting aside the order passed by the trial Judge and holding that respondent No.1 plaintiff was entitled to be substituted as legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff Prannath?" 2. Brief facts are that in Civil Suit No. I-A of l996 instituted on 5.8.1989 the sole plaintiff Prannath died during the pendency of the suit on 12.11.1994. The respondent No.1 Mangluram applied for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 of. C.P.C. on the basis of a will executed by Prannath on 10.10.1994 which was got registered on 22.1 0.1994 by Prannath. The trial Court after giving an opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence dismissed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CP:C. and the suit on 31.08.1996. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 87 -All 996 in which the lower appellate Court held that the order passed by the trial Court amounted to a decree and was, therefore, appealable was further held that the respondent-Mangluram had prima facie proved the execution of will in his favour by Prannath. On these grounds, it reversed the Order passed by the trial Judge and allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. filed by Mangluram and remanded the Civil Suit to the trial Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 4. Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. is as under: “5. Determination of question as to legal representative.-Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 4. Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. is as under: “5. Determination of question as to legal representative.-Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons there for, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question." A reading of the above provision shows that the enquiry contemplated by Order 22 Rule 5 is summary in character even though parties are allowed to lead evidence. A decree has been defined in Section 2 sub-clause (2) of the Code of civil Procedure as under: "(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation.- A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. 5. An order of abatement of suit on the ground that right to sue does not survive on the death of sole plaintiff is automatic consequent upon the failure of the legal representatives to be brought on record within the period of/imitation and no formal order is necessary. In such a case, there is no adjudication on the rights of the parties in the suit or appeal by such an order, and therefore, such an order does not amount to a decree. In such a case, there is no adjudication on the rights of the parties in the suit or appeal by such an order, and therefore, such an order does not amount to a decree. On the other hand, where the Court comes to the conclusion that consequent on the death of one of the plaintiffs right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiffs, there is final adjudication of the rights of the parries to suit, and therefore, such an order amounts to a decree. The question arises as to where an application for substitution is filed by a person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff on the basis of a will executed by the deceased sole plaintiff and the Court after recording evidence and conducting a summary enquiry dismisses it on the ground that the will is not proved, and therefore, such person is not the legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff, such order amounts to a decree and is appealable. 6. In determining whether an order of abatement is open to appeal a distinction should be drawn between those cases of abatement where it is due to the failure of the heirs being brought on the record within the period allowed by law or due to the Court deciding that a particular applicant is not the legal representative, and those cases where the abatement is due to the Court deciding that the right to sue does not survive. In the latter class of cases, there is a decree meaning thereby a formal adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. The order whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 3 is dismissed on the ground that the applicant was not the legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff would, therefore, fall in the first category of the cases as mentioned above. 7. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesn High Court in Mithulal & others Vs. Badri Prasad & others!, has held that an order refusing substitution is not appealable. 7. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesn High Court in Mithulal & others Vs. Badri Prasad & others!, has held that an order refusing substitution is not appealable. The facts in that case were that no enquiry as contemplated by Order 22 Rule 5 of C.P.C. was conducted by the trial Court before rejecting the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. for being substituted in place of the original plaintiff on the basis of a will. In the present case, although a summ8l)' enquiry was conducted by the trial Judge by allowing the parties to lead evidence on the question of execution of will by late Prannath in favour of the applicant Mangluram a finding was recorded by the trial Court that execution of will in favour of Mangluram by the deceased sole plaintiff Prannath was not proved in accordance with law and on such a finding it was held that Mangluram was not the legal representative of Prannath, and therefore, not entitled to be substituted as plaintiff. 8. The question that would be germane for deciding the controversy would, therefore, be whether the impugned order conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the other matters in controversy in the suit. The respondent No.1 applied for substitution on the basis of execution of will by the deceased sole plaintiff Prannath. The question whether Prannath had executed a will in favour of Mangluram/respondent No.1 was not at all in controversy in the suit and arose merely for determining the right of the respondent No.1/Mangluram to be substituted as a plaintiff on the basis of a will executed by Prannath. In such a situation, there would be no difficulty in holding that the enquiry into the question whether the deceased sole plaintiff Prannath had executed a will in favour of the respondent No.1 Mangluram did not culminate in deciding a question which would have conclusively determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in the controversy in the suit. Such an order would, therefore, not be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an order would, therefore, not be a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, an appeal against such an order would not lie but only a revision would lie against such an order to show that the order is vitiated by illegality or that the Court acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. The impugned order does not amount to a decree, and therefore, the appeal did not lie. The order passed by the lower appellate Court that appeal lies since the impugned order amounts to a decree is contrary to law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Question No. 'A' therefore, is answered in the affirmative. 9. So far as the execution of will by late Prannath in favour of respondent Mangluram is concerned, this could be proved only in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The respondent No.1 examined only Balwant Pimplekhare who had singed the will as attesting witness. Balwant Pimplekhare stated in paragraph 8 that the will EX.A.I was not typed in his presence and he and Prannath had signed the will in the Bar room of the Court. However, this appears to be palpably false because of his admission in paragrapn 5 that Prannath was very ill at the time of execution of will EX.A.I and was suffering from Filaria i.e. both his legs were swollen. It is obvious that Prannath could not have visited the Bar room, District Court Bilaspur for executing the will. It is also pertinent to note that there is not even a whisper in his evidence to show that the will was attested by another witness who saw Prannath signing the will and had also signed the will in presence of Prannath. His statement in paragraph 9 that he could not say whether the signature on the will were of Prannath who was contesting the suit completely demolishes the case of the respondent Mangluram regarding execution of the will by Prannath in his favour. It is also to be noticed that he did not depose about the contents of the will tie also admitted that he is a Government servant and had not taken leave for visiting the Court room to attest the execution of the will. He also admitted that Mangluram was not present at the time of execution of will. It is also to be noticed that he did not depose about the contents of the will tie also admitted that he is a Government servant and had not taken leave for visiting the Court room to attest the execution of the will. He also admitted that Mangluram was not present at the time of execution of will. It was also admitted by him that Prannath and Manglu belonged to different castes. I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court had, by a well reasoned order, held that execution of will by Prannath in favour of Mangluram was not proved and was justified in dismissing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 filed by respondent No. l /Mangluram. Question No. 'B' is answered in the negative. The impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court whereby the order passed by the trial Coul1 was reversed is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28th January, 1998 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No 87-N1996 is set aside white affirming the Order dated 31.08.1996 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit NO.I-NI996. Appeal Allowed.