Marry Vailakanni & Others vs Arun William & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5463 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Marry Vailakanni & Others vs Arun William & Others on 2 September, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                                           2022:JHHC:43364




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Misc. Appeal No.629 of 2016
                                With
           I.A. No.4681 of 2025 and I.A. No.11739 of 2025
                                ------

Marry Vailakanni & Others .... .... .... Appellants Versus Arun William & Others .... .... .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Advocate

------

Order No.15 / Dated : 02.09.2025 Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the refusal to grant of Letters of Administration vide judgment dated 20th August, 2016 in Title Suit No.02 of 2012.

Heard learned counsel in I.A. No.4681 of 2025 which has been filed for substitution of legal heirs of respondent no.16 under Order XXII, Rules 2 and 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that respondent no.16 died on 06.07.2001 and substitution petition as well as the rejoinder was filed, but no final order was passed on it.

From perusal of the certified copy of the order of the trial Court, it is apparent that on 27.09.2001, the petition for substitution was filed and on 08.04.2002, a rejoinder was also filed with respect to it however, no formal order of substitution was passed which is evident from the cause title of the judgment. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that there was no laches on the part of the appellants therefore, the prayer is made to allow the substitution petition at the appellate stage by invoking power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 151 of the CPC.

Learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.2 - 15 submits that he has no serious objection to the substitution petition.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the appellants does not appear to be at fault for the defect of non- substitution at the trial Court stage. Petition was duly filed for their substitution, and rejoinder to it was also filed. However, due to oversight, it 2022:JHHC:43364

appears that no formal order was passed and the testamentary suit was disposed of by the trial Court.

Procedures as laid down in the CPC are exhaustive so far as the provisions in it has been laid down. However, they do not cover all the contingencies for which inherent power is given under Section 151 of the CPC. This Court is conscious of the fact that where there are express provisions, inherent powers cannot be invoked.

Appeal is a continuation of the suit. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in order to advance substantial justice and proper hearing in the matter and considering the fact that appellants cannot be held liable for the non-substitution of the legal heirs of respondent no.16 at the trial stage, I.A. No.4681 of 2025 for substitution of respondent no.16 by the legal heirs and descendants as detailed in para 5 of the interlocutory application, is allowed. Office to incorporate their names in the cause title of the memo of appeal by red pen.

Let notice be issued to the substituted heirs of respondent no.16 by Speed Post as well as by ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within ten days of the order.

I.A. No.11739 of 2025 is disposed of.

Let this case be listed after five weeks.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit