Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 191 (MP)

Manjeet Bhalla v. State of M. P.

2025-03-13

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2025
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. 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. 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-assignment of reasons is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case Hasmat Ali v. Amina Bibi and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1142 has held as under:- 14. In case the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal. However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the reasons. Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted. The Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. In our view, the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion. 15. In Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan, this Court has laid down that for dismissal of a second appeal without being admitted, the High Court is required to assign reasons. It was held thus: “29. The scheme of section 100 is that once the High Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, such question shall have to be framed under sub-section (4) of section 100. It is the framing of the question which empowers the High Court to finally decide the appeal in accordance with the procedure prescribed under sub-section (5). Both the requirements prescribed in sub-sections (4) and (5) are, therefore, mandatory and have to be followed in the manner prescribed therein. Indeed, as mentioned supra, the jurisdiction to decide the second appeal finally arises only after the substantial question of law is framed under sub-section (4). There may be a case and indeed there are cases where even after framing a substantial question of law, the same can be answered against the appellant. It is, however, done only after hearing the respondents under subsection (5). 30. There may be a case and indeed there are cases where even after framing a substantial question of law, the same can be answered against the appellant. It is, however, done only after hearing the respondents under subsection (5). 30. If, however, the High Court is satisfied after hearing the appellant at the time of admission that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, then such appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine without any notice to the respondents after recording a finding in the dismissal order that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of subsection (4). It is needless to say that for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to assign the reasons in support of its conclusion.” 11. Thus, it is clear that if the High Court is of the view that second appeal does not involve substantial question of law, then it has to assign the reason so that the parties losing the case must know that why it has suffered an adverse order. 12. Applying the same analogy, it was essential for the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to assign the reason so as to apprise the petitioners about the reasons for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2019. However, no reasons have been assigned. 13. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that not only a suit was filed against a dead person but even the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not assign any reason in support of its conclusion that the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 does not deserve to be rejected/dismissed at threshold. 14. Accordingly, the judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed in F.A.No.64/2020 is hereby recalled. 15. F.A.No.64/2020 is restored to its original file. 16. Call for the record of the trial Court. 17. List immediately after the receipt of record of trial Court. 18. With aforesaid observation, the review petition is finally disposed of.