The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a recent order, quashed a trial court’s decision that had rejected applications for substituting legal representatives (LRs) on procedural grounds.
Justice Deepak Khot, sitting at the Jabalpur bench, held that the trial court’s order was “bad in law” as it was passed “dehors the principle” laid down by the Supreme Court, which mandates a liberal and justice-oriented approach in such matters. The High Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision.
The legal issue centered on the rejection of applications filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by a trial court. The High Court (2025:MPHC-JBP:52949) reinforced the principle that a prayer for setting aside abatement is inherent in an application for substitution, even if not explicitly stated.
Background of the Case
The High Court was hearing Misc. Petition No. 5302 of 2025, filed by Kirti Jain and others. The petitioners were aggrieved by an order dated 7.8.2025 passed by the II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uchehara, District Satna, in Civil Suit No. 17/2019.
By the impugned order, the trial court had rejected two applications, I.A.No.2/2025 and I.A.No.3/2025, which were filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit) to bring on record the legal heirs of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 16, respectively.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Shri Akhilesh Ku Jain, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the application for substituting the LRs of defendant No. 1 was “well within time.” It was argued that the trial court rejected the application merely on the ground that the death certificate and family tree of the deceased defendant had not been filed.
The counsel contended that this was an error, as the order-sheets allegedly showed “no dispute in regard to the legal heirs proposed by the petitioner/plaintiff.” In the absence of such a dispute, the application “ought to have been allowed.”
Regarding the application for defendant No. 16’s LRs, the counsel submitted that it was “filed on the next hearing” immediately after the counsel informed the court of the defendant’s death. It was argued that this application was “based on bona fide and considering the date of knowledge/information ought to have been allowed.”
The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash Gupta allias Lalloowa (now deceased) and others Vs. Satish Chandra (now deceased) (AIR 2025 SC 1201). Citing this, it was argued that even if applications under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not filed, a prayer for setting aside abatement “could be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice.” The counsel stressed that such prayers “have to be considered liberally.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Deepak Khot noted that the applications before the trial court had “remained unopposed” and that the power to substitute LRs “is inherent with the Court.”
The High Court observed that the trial court “ought to have considered the application in the light of the dictum of the Hon. Apex Court.”
The judgment quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini ((2003) 10 SCC 691), which was reiterated in the Om Prakash Gupta case. The Supreme Court had held:
“8. …A simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement… Too technical or pedantic an approach in such cases is not called for.”
The Supreme Court further opined that courts “have to adopt a justice-oriented approach” and that a litigant “ought not to be denied an opportunity of having a lis determined on merits” unless they are guilty of “gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct.”
Finding that the trial court’s order was contrary to these established principles, the High Court held:
“In the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order dated 7.8.2025… is bad in law and is hereby quashed.”
The High Court allowed the petition and disposed of it with a direction, remanding the case back to the II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uchehara. The trial court was directed “to decide the application afresh on its own merits, considering the law laid down by Hon. Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta (supra).”
