CW/787/2019 of MANGALRAM SON OF KANHAIYALAL Vs RAM NATH SON OF MANYA on 20 August 2026

Order

20/08/2026

1. The writ petition comes up on a Misc. Application (IA No.1/2025) filed by and on behalf of respondents-plaintiffs, seeking vacation of the ex parte interim stay order dated 10.01.2019, whereby and whereunder further proceedings in their Civil Suit No.69/2013 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur were stayed.

2. The issue involved in the present writ petition is in respect of taking legal representatives of deceased defendants No.1 and 2 on record, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2018, hence, with the consent of counsel for both parties, the writ petition has been heard finally on merits.

3. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record, including the impugned order.

4. It appears that plaintiffs filed a civil suit on 22.02.2013, seeking to declare a registered sale deed dated 02.08.1995 as null and void qua the rights of plaintiffs. The sale deed in question was executed by defendants No.1, 2 and 3 in favour of defendants No.4, 5, 6 and 7. The relief of declaration of the sale deed as null and void has been prayed for by plaintiffs against defendants No.4 to 7, who are purchasers of the suit property under the said sale deed. In addition, consequential relief of permanent injunction has also been prayed for.

5. It appears that, in the civil suit, service of summons upon defendants No.1 and 2 could not be effected, since a report was

(3 of 5) [CW-787/2019] received that both of them have passed away. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved an application under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking impleadment of their legal representatives in place of deceased defendants No.1 and 2. The said application was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2018, whereagainst defendants No.4 to 7 (petitioners herein) have preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The contention of counsel for petitioners is that the application filed by plaintiffs was highly belated and, in fact, defendants No.1 and 2 had died much prior to the filing of the present suit, hence, the suit was liable to be abated and their legal representatives could not have been brought on record.

7. Having considered the nature of the suit and the relief prayed for therein, this Court finds that plaintiffs have sought a declaration in respect of the sale deed in question against defendants No.4 to 7. Hence, in such view the matter, on account of the death of defendants No.1 and 2 and non-impleadment of their legal representatives as party defendants, the civil suit does not abate.

8. The trial Court has observed that the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is within limitation from the date of receiving information regarding the death of defendants No.1 and 2 as per the report received on their summons, however, same is delayed from the date of death of defendants No.1 and 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors.

[(2010) 8 SCC 685]

, observed that while construing the

(4 of 5) [CW-787/2019] term “sufficient cause” incorporated under Order 22 Rule 9(2) and

(3) CPC, a liberal interpretation should be given with a view to balancing the rights of the parties.

9. In the case at hand, considering the nature of the civil suit and the relief prayed for therein, non-impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants No.1 and 2 does not lead to abatement of the suit. Learned trial Court in the order impugned has allowed impleadment of legal representatives of deceased defendants No.1 and 2, and the order impugned does not adversely affect the rights of petitioners/ defendants No.4 to 7 to contest the civil suit on merits. Otherwise also, the order impugned does not lead to any miscarriage of justice. Hence, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order is not warranted.

10. In this regard, it would not be out of place to refer to the oft- quoted and landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [2001

(8) SCC 97], wherein the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been explained as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that

(5 of 5) [CW-787/2019] the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis Supplied) The ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber (Supra), has been affirmed and reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu [2026 SCC OnLine (SC) 745], and in Para No.31, following observations have been made:- “31. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration before this Court in several judgments, and the law governing of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by courts and tribunals over which it exercise the power of superintendence under Article

227. ”

11. As a final result, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. The interim stay order dated 10.01.2019 stands vacated.

12. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith, to proceed further with the present civil suit. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/ 25