Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devisingh And 4 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 SA-258-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
SA No. 258 of 2011
(DEVISINGH AND 4 ORS. AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. AND OTHERS )
Dated : 10-07-2025
Shri Om Prakash Solanki, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Aniruddh Malpani, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the LRs of respondent No.7.
Heard on I.A. No.6323/2021, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of
CPC, I.A. No.6324/2021, an application for setting aside abatement and I.A.
No.6325/2021, an application for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant
Devisingh and others had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction. The trial Court vide judgment dated 29.09.2010,
passed in Civil Suit RCA No.41-A/2008 partly allowed the suit. The trial
Court rejected the relief for declaration of title and the granted relief of
permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 28.02.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2010
affirmed the finding of the trial Court with regard to declining the relief of
declaration of title. The First Appellate Court further set aside the relief of
permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants.
The respondent No.7 - Samandar Singh was defendant before the trial
Court. He remained ex-parte during the trial. Respondent No.7 has expired
on 23.05.2016. The respondent No.7 was resident of village Barkheda Soma,
Tehsil Bagli, District Dewas, but he has shifted 7 to 8 years before his death
2 SA-258-2011
to village Jamgod in Tehsil Dewas. Therefore, the appellants were not aware
of the death of respondent No.7 Samandar Singh. In August, 2021, the
appellants came to know about death of respondent No.7 Samandar Singh,
therefore, they collected information from village Jamgod and requisitioned
the death certificate of Samandar Singh. The delay in filing of application is
attributable to afore-stated reason, therefore, the delay may be condoned and
the legal representatives of respondent No.7 Samandar Singh be taken on
record after setting aside the abatement.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of legal representatives of
respondent No.7 - Samandar Singh has no substantial objection to the IAs.
Heard both the parties and perused the record.
The respondent No.7 - Samandar Singh had died on 23.05.2016. No
application to substitute his legal representatives was filed within prescribed
period of limitation of 90 days, therefore, the appeal stands abate
automatically.[Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University & Ors.
reported in (2001) 6 SCC 534 relied].
The appellants have filed I.A. No.6324/2021 for setting aside
abatement and I.A. No.6325/2021 for condonation of delay. The explanation
for the delay appears to be bonafide. Sufficient cause for the delay is made
out. Therefore, I.A. No.6324/2021 and I.A. No.6325/2021 are allowed.
Delay in filing of application is condoned. The abatement of appeal with
reference to legal representatives of respondent No.7 Samandar Singh is set
aside. Further, I.A. No.6323/2021 is allowed and substitution of legal
representatives is permitted.
3 SA-258-2011
Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title of the appeal
within seven working days.
This appeal was admitted for final hearing on formulation of
substantial question of law vide order dated 20.03.2015. The plaint was filed
in the year 2005, therefore, the second appeal deserves to be heard at the
earliest.
After necessary amendment in the cause title, list this appeal for final
hearing in the "final hearing list" of next month.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
