Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Ganesh vs Smt.Sumitra Raje And 6 Ors. on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 FA-6-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 6 of 2011
(SMT.GANESH Vs SMT.SUMITRA RAJE AND 6 ORS. AND OTHERS )
Dated : 10-07-2025
Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Harish Joshi - Advocate for respondent.
Heard on IA no. 3227/2022, an application filed under Order XXII
Rule 3 of the CPC filed by legal representatives of sole appellant Smt.
Gangesh Kumari.
Learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of appellant Smt. Gangesh
Kumari submits that sole appellant had expired on 12/03/2022. Copy of her
death certificate is annexed with the application. The applicants are legal
representatives of Smt. Gangesh Kumari. They wish to prosecute this appeal,
therefore, the applicants be substituted in place of deceased / appellant Smt.
Gangesh Kumari.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no substantial
objection to the I.A.
Heard. Perused the record.
This first appeal was filed by the appellant Smt. Gangesh Kumari
feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 22/12/2010 passed by the
District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit no. 37-A of 2010, whereby the civil suit
was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for want of cause of
action. Smt. Gangesh Kumari had filed the civil suit for declaration of title,
partition and permanent injunction. The Legal representative of original
2 FA-6-2011
plaintiff Smt. Gangesh wish to prosecute this appeal. The right to sue
survives in favour of the applicants. The application is within prescribed
limitation.
Considering these aspects of the matter, I.A no. 3227/2022 is allowed.
Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title of appeal within seven
working days.
Also heard on IA no. 4675 of 2021, application filed under Order
XXII Rule 2 and 4 of the CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.1
Sumitra Raje had expired on 10/03/2021. Her death certificate is annexed
with the application. Her legal representatives i.e. son Jagat and Ashish are
already on record as respondent nos. 5 and 6, therefore, name of respondent
no. 1 Sumitra Raje may be deleted from the cause title of appeal. Learned
counsel further contends that the delay in filing of present application was
attributable to COVID-19 pandemic.
Considered.
Respondent no. 1 Sumitra Raje had expired on 10/03/2021 as shown
in her death certificate. The said application is filed on 22/07/2021.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for extension of limitation, In
RE. reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 has directed that the period falling
between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded from computing the
period of limitation in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.
Legal representatives of deceased / respondent no. 1 Sumitra Raje are
already on record as respondent nos. 5 and 6 to represent her, therefore, the
3 FA-6-2011
appeal does not abate.
Considering these aspects of the matter, I.A no. 4675/2021 is allowed
with the direction that instead of deleting the name of respondent no. 1
Sumitra Raje in the cause title of appeal, an endorsement be made in the
cause title of appeal to the effect that Sumitra Raje has expired on
10/03/2021 and her legal representatives are already on record as respondent
nos. 5 and 6 to represent her.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
List the matter for further hearing in the week commencing
11/08/2025.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
