Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanat Kumar vs Murti Shriram Mandir Nelkheda ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 FA-204-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 204 of 2007
(SANAT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs MURTI SHRIRAM MANDIR NELKHEDA TH.SANRAKS )
Dated : 15-07-2025
Shri Jitendra Shukla - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Aniruddh Malpani public prosecutor for State.
Heard on IA No. 3867/2025 and 3868/2025.
Learned counsel for the appellants and legal representatives of
appellant No.1 submits that appellant Sanat Kumar has expired on
12.01.2025. He is survived by legal representatives as mentioned in
interlocutory application. Death certificate of Sanat Kumar is enclosed with
the IA. Learned counsel further submits that the application for substitution
of legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 could not be filed within
prescribed period of limitation, therefore, the appeal stands abate. The legal
representatives and remaining respondents have filed another IA No.
3868/2025, an application under Order XXII Rule 9 and 11 of CPC for
setting aside abatement. This application is filed within the prescribed period
of limitation. Therefore, delay of 10 days in filing the application for
substitution may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no substantial objection to the
I.A.
Heard. Perused the records.
The respondent Murti Shri Ram Mandir Nalkheda had filed the civil
suit for declaratory decree that the judgment and decree passed in civil suit
2 FA-204-2007
No. 42A/1996 is void and not binding on them. The trial Court decreed the
suit and granted declaratory decree and permanent injunction in favour of
plaintiff. The present first appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by declaratory
decree and permanent injunction granted by the trial Court. During pendency
of the present appeal, appellant Sanat Kumar son of original defendant
Gokuldas has expired. The right to sue and prosecute the present appeal
survives in favour of legal representatives of appellant No.1 Sanat Kumar.
Considering these aspect of the matter, IA No.3867/2025 and
3868/2025 are allowed.
Let the cause title of appeal be amended within 7 working days.
Heard on IA No. 3869/2025, an application under Section 151 of CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant No.3
Draupatibai @ Ramubai wife of late Gokuldas had expired on 19.02.2025.
Her legal representatives are already on record as other appellants. They
propose to prosecute the present appeal and represent the estate of appellant
No.3.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no substantial objection to the
application.
Heard. Considered.
I.A no. 3869/2025 is allowed with the direction that instead of
deleting the name of appellant no. 3 Draupatibai endorsement may be made
in the cause title of appeal memo to the effect that appellant no. 3
Draupatibai had died on 19.02.2025 and her legal representatives are already
on record as appellants.
3 FA-204-2007
Learned counsel for the respondents requests for final hearing of the
matter.
The matter has been directed to be listed for final hearing vide orders
dated 5.5.2022, 28.9.2022, 1.3.2024, 5.4.2024 and 14.5.2024. The first
appeal pending for almost 18 years, requires an early hearing.
Both the parties are directed to ensure final argument on the next date
of hearing, failing which hearing of appeal may proceed in absentia of
defaulting party.
List the matter for final hearing on 3.9.2025.
IR to continue till the next date of hearing.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
