Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Training Of Trial Court Judge, Says She Has No Basic Knowledge Of Law
The Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting substitution of a petitioner on the basis of a valid will and directed training for the presiding officer at JOTRI.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has set aside an order of the trial court rejecting substitution of a petitioner as legal representative in a civil suit, observing that the presiding officer lacked basic knowledge of procedural law. The Court directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the District Judge, the Director of JOTRI, and the Registrar General to ensure appropriate training of the officer concerned.
A Bench of Justice Hirdesh, while delivering the judgment, remarked that “It is crystal clear that the Presiding Officer of Trial Court, namely, Ms. Varsha Bhalavi has no basic knowledge of law and she needs training in JOTRI regarding procedural law.”
Advocate Anil Kumar Shrivastava appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Tara Chandra Narwariya and Advocate Dhirendra Singh Chouhan represented the respondents.
Background
The case arose from a civil suit for declaration, partition, and injunction filed by Munni Devi, who claimed a one-third share in certain agricultural property. During her lifetime, she executed a will in favour of her husband and children. After her death, her son, the petitioner, sought substitution as plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, based on the will.
The trial court dismissed the application, reasoning that other legal heirs named in the will were not included in the substitution application. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection order.
Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that the trial court committed an error in law by rejecting the application for substitution on the ground that all the legal heirs named in the will were not impleaded. Referring to the definition of “legal representative” under Section 2(11) CPC, the Court held that a legatee under a duly executed will steps into the shoes of the deceased and is entitled to represent the estate. In the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, such substitution cannot be refused.
The Court observed that there was no allegation of fraud or collusion against the petitioner, and therefore, he was entitled to be substituted as plaintiff. Justice Hirdesh noted that rejecting the application despite a valid will reflected a fundamental error of law.
The bench further pointed out that once the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was dismissed, and no plaintiff survived to prosecute the suit, the trial court should have treated the case as abated. Instead, the matter was incorrectly fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence, showing a serious lapse in understanding of procedure.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered substitution of the petitioner as plaintiff and directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Conclusion
Allowing the petition, the Court set aside the trial court’s order and ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the District Judge, the Director of JOTRI, and the Registrar General of the High Court for necessary action.
Cause Title: Pawan Pathak v. Nathuram and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:19853)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Pratika Pathak, Rajiv Raghuvanshi
Respondents: Advocates Tara Chandra Narwariya, Dhirendra Singh Chouhan, Man Singh Jadon, Government Advocate (for State).