'Presiding Officer Has No Basic Knowledge Of Law': MP High Court Orders Training Of Civil Judge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, recently, ordered the training of a 6th Civil Judge, Sr. Division, District Gwalior, noting that the 'Presiding Officer of Trial Court... has no basic knowledge of law and she needs training in JOTRI regarding procedural law'. These observations were made in a petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge, wherein the petitioner's application under Order 22 Rule 3, read with Section 151 of CPC, was rejected. 

The bench of Justice Hirdesh observed that the civil judge had rejected the substitution application solely because other heirs named in the Will were not included. The court observed, "the defendants therein/respondents have not stated that the "Will" was executed by means of fraud or collusion", while citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Dolai Molliko vs. Krushna Chandra Patnaik [AIR 1967 SC 49]. 

The bench further noted that when the civil judge had rejected the petitioner's application, the suit 'ought to have been rejected as abated' due to the lack of plaintiffs surviving in the suit. However, the trial court fixed the case for the plaintiff's evidence.

Accordingly, the bench directed,

"So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application of petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to implead petitioner as "plaintiff" and decide the suit in accordance with law".

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed in 2021 by Munni Devi, seeking a declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of an agricultural land in Village Bilheti, Gwalior. Munni Devi claimed 1/3rd share in the property as the daughter of late Jagannath Prasad Mudgal. 

During her lifetime, Munni Devi executed a will on May 4 2024, in favour of her late husband Sitaram Pathak and their children, including the petitioner. Following her death on May 12, 2024, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CpC, seeking substitution of his name in place of Munni Devi on the basis of the Will. 

Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC states;

"3. Joinder of causes of action.—(1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit".

Section 151 CPC states;

"Saving of inherent powers of Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court". 

However, the civil judge rejected the application on January 8, 2025, holding that other legal heirs mentioned in the Will were not included in the substitution application and, therefore, the petitioner alone could not represent the estate of Munni Devi. 

Before the high court, the petitioner contended that the civil judge committed an error of law. It was argued that a Class I heir has the right to sue, and the Will expressly bequeathed Munni Devi's share to him. It was contended that, 'The application cannot be rejected only on the ground that other heirs of deceased have been left because after death of original plaintiff, petitioner became co-owner of property of plaintiff having a right to sue against defendants to the extent of his share which was left by his mother Munni Devi after her death'. 

The high court noted that the civil judge rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that other heirs mentioned in the Will were not impleaded. The court emphasized that the respondents or the defendants, before the Civil Judge, had not alleged that the Will was executed through fraud or collusion. Thus, the court, noting that the trial court had committed an error, observed that, "So, on the basis of "Will" executed by deceased-plaintiff , the name of petitioner shall be substituted in place of deceased plaintiff". 

Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner's application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. 

Case Title: Pawan Pathak v Nathuram (MP-440-2025)

Citation: 

For Petitioner: Advocates Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Pratika Pathak and Rajiv Raghuvanshi

For Respondent: Advocates Tara Chandra Narwariya and Dhirendra Singh Chouhan

For State: Government Advocate Man Singh Jadon

Click here to read the Order