Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chandra Chaudhary vs State Of M.P.Through on 16 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14703
1 SA-91-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 16th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 91 of 2006
SURESH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY
Versus
STATE OF M.P.THROUGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, Government Advocate for
respondents No. 1 to 3/State.
ORDER
I.A. No.5126/2025 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC
for substitution of legal representative of appellant - Suresh Chandra
Chaudhary, who expired in Khaniyadhana on 30.11.2019.
I.A. No.5141/2025 has been filed for setting aside abatement of
appeal on account of death of appellant - Suresh Chandra Chaudhary.
I.A. No.5127/2025 has been filed for condonation of delay in
filing an application for setting aside abatement.
I.A. No.5140/2025 has been filed for substitution of legal
representatives of respondent No. 4 - Rajaram, who expired in the month
of July, 2022.
I.A. No.5130/2025 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14703
2 SA-91-2006
for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 4 - Rajaram.
I.A. No.5129/2025 has been filed for condonation of delay in
filing application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent
No. 4 - Rajaram.
I.A. No.5127/2025 & I.A. No.5141/2025
Both these applications have been filed for condonation of delay
in filing application for setting aside abatement as well as setting aside
the abatement of appeal on account of death of appellant - Suresh
Chandra Chaudhary.
In both these applications, it is mentioned that after the case was
listed on 16.07.2025, learned counsel for the appellant informed Bhanu
Kumar Jain on phone about the listing of the case. Only after receiving
phone call from the counsel for the appellant, proposed legal
representatives came to know about the pendency of this appeal and,
accordingly, they contacted their counsel on 13.07.2025 and they were
told that the proceedings are to be taken up for substitution of legal
representatives and, accordingly, I.A. No.5127/2025 and I.A.
No.5141/2025 have been filed for condonation of delay as well as for
setting aside the abatement. Both these applications have been filed on
the solitary ground that proposed legal representatives were not aware of
the pendency of appeal. However, it is clear from these applications that
counsel for the appellant was having phone number of Bhanu Kumar
Jain, who is one of the legal representatives. Accordingly, a question was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14703
3 SA-91-2006
put to counsel for the appellant that if Bhanu Kumar Jain had never
contacted him, then how he came in possession of phone number of
Bhanu Kumar Jain. It is submitted that since this case has been listed
after 2016, therefore, it is difficult for him to recollect as to how he got
the phone number of Bhanu Kumar Jain.
One thing is clear that since counsel for the appellant was having
number of Bhanu Kumar Jain, therefore, contention of proposed legal
representatives that they were not aware of the pendency of appeal, is
false even to their knowledge. Bhanu Kumar Jain is a businessman,
whereas another legal representative of Suresh Chandra Chaudhary,
namely, Ajjit Kumar Jain is a doctor by profession. Therefore, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that proposed legal representatives
of appellant - Suresh Chandra Chaudhary are rustic villagers.
At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that this Court in the case of Bhagwandas and others Vs. Ramsahai and
others reported in 2013 (3) MPLJ 505 has held that if the appellants are
illiterate and are not well versed with the procedural aspect of law and
they were prevented from filing an application due to ignorance, then
application for substitution as well as setting aside the abatement should
be considered in a liberal manner. Similarly, learned counsel for the
appellant also relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Prem Singh
reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 237.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14703
4 SA-91-2006
Considered the facts of this case in the light of aforesaid two
judgments passed by this Court.
This Court has already held that one of the legal representatives of
appellant - Suresh Chandra Chaudhary was aware of the pendency of
this appeal and he was in contact with the counsel for the appellant.
Other legal representatives of Suresh Chandra Chaudhary are also the
residents of same village and are residing in the same house, therefore, it
cannot be accepted that none of the legal representative of appellant -
Suresh Chandra Chaudhary were not aware of the pendency of this
appeal.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that although legal representatives of the appellant - Suresh Chandra
Chaudhary were aware of pendency of this appeal, but they did not
contact their counsel thereby informing him about the death of appellant.
It is nowhere mentioned in the application that proposed legal
representatives were not aware of the procedural law requiring
substitution of legal representatives. If a party is sleeping over his right
and is not vigilant about his rights and is not interested in contacting his
own counsel, then this Court cannot come to the rescue of such parties,
who are literate and are in medical profession also.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no case is made out for condonation of delay in filing application for
setting aside the abatement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14703
5 SA-91-2006
Accordingly, I.A. No.5127/2025 is hereby dismissed. As a
consequence thereof, I.A. No.5141/2025 is dismissed on the ground of
delay and in consequence thereof, I.A. No.5126/2025 is dismissed and
legal representatives are not permitted to be brought on record. For
similar reason, I.A. No.5140/2025, I.A. No.5130/2025 and I.A.
No.5129/2025, which have been filed in respect of respondent No. 4 -
Rajaram, are also dismissed.
Resultantly, this second appeal is dismissed as abated.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Abhi
