Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1378 (JHR)

Prakash Kumar Sinha v. Leyaqat Ansari

2019-08-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the defendants petitioners and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposite parties. 2. The defendants petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-1, Garhwa, in Title Suit No. 39 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff No. 1, for substitution of the deceased plaintiff No.11, by his heirs and legal representatives, under order XXII Rules 3 and 9 of the C.P.C., read with Section 5 of the limitation Act, was allowed by the Trial Court below. 3. It is an admitted position that the original plaintiff No. 11, Jamaluddin Mian had died in the year 2011, and the application for his substitution was filed by the plaintiff No. 1 on 14.02.2017, i.e., after a lapse of about 6 years. As regards the delay in filing the substitution petition, it was stated that the plaintiffs are rustic and illiterate villagers and they had no knowledge of law, therefore, they could not inform the counsel regarding the death of Jamaluddin Mian in time. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants’ petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the ground taken in the limitation petition filed in the Court below was that the plaintiff No.1 had no knowledge regarding the death of the plaintiff No. 11 Jamaluddin Mian, which fact cannot be believed, as all the plaintiffs are close agnates. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order is fit to be set aside, as in one application it was stated that they had no knowledge about the law, whereas on the other hand, in the limitation petition, it was stated that they had no knowledge about the death of the deceased plaintiff, and both these statements are contradictory statements. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite parties on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. The substitution application as also the application filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act, have been brought on record. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite parties on the other hand has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. The substitution application as also the application filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act, have been brought on record. In the substitution application it is stated that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of law, as they are rustic and illiterate villagers, whereas in the limitation petition it is clearly stated that the plaintiff had no knowledge about the death of Jamaluddin Mian, and the heirs of Jamaluddin Mian did not inform him about the death of their father. 7. The fact however, remains that all the plaintiffs are the close agnates, and in the plaint, the address given of all the plaintiffs is the same. In that view of the matter, the statement that plaintiff No. 1 had no knowledge about the death of Jamaluddin Mian for about six long years, is quite unbelievable. 8. In my considered view, though it is settled law that the substitution petitions are to be favourably considered, and the limitation applications are to be liberally allowed, but that does not mean that even in the event of making apparently false statements, the substitution petitions / limitation petitions are to be allowed. 9. In the facts of this case, the impugned order dated 24.07.2017, passed by Trial Court below substituting the deceased plaintiff No. 11 Jamaluddin Mian by his heirs and legal representatives, on the basis of false statements, thus, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. As such, the impugned order dated 24.07.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-1, Garhwa, in Title Suit No. 39 of 2007, is hereby, set aside. 11. This revision application is accordingly, allowed.