1 - Chandra Prakash Mittal S/o Late Shri Prabhudayal Mittal Aged About 65 Years v. 1 - Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Through Its President, Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal, Rampur
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WP227 No. 237 of 2022 1 - Chandra Prakash Mittal S/o Late Shri Prabhudayal Mittal Aged About 65 Years R/o Bada Bazar, Chirmiri, Tehsil Manendragarh (Now Chirmiri), District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Through Its President, Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal, Rampur, Jabalpur, (Madhyapradesh) At Present Chhattisgarh Electricity Board Through Its President, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Divisional Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Now Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Sub-Division Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Now Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Sub - Division Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
4 - Niranjan Kumar Mittal S/o Late Shri Prabhudayal Mittal Aged About 60 Years R/o Near Indian Oil Patrol Pump, Ward No.1, Police Station And Tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 5 - M/s. Prabhudayal Chandraprakash Mittal Through Its Proprietor Namely Prabhudayal Mittal, S/o Late Banshidhar Mittal (Since Died), Ambikapur Road, Ward No.1, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Bada Bazar, Tehsil Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with For Petitioner Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 For other Respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07.2025 -2- 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-1, Manendragarh (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.62-A/2001 dated 22.09.2020 whereby the learned Trial Court found the validity of the Will Deed Ex.P/1 doubtful and further held that the petitioner is not a legal representative of the late Prabhudayal Mittal. 2. The facts of the present case are that the late Prabhudayal Mittal filed a suit for disconnection of the electricity against the Electricity Board on 31.10.2000. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by respondent No.4/another son of Prabhudayal Mittal, which was allowed. Late Prabhudayal Mittal executed a Will Deed in favour of the petitioner/Chandraprakash Mittal on 16.04.2001. Respondent No.4/Niranjan Kumar Mittal filed a Written Statement on 24.07.2001. The civil suit was decreed in favour of the original plaintiff, namely Prabhudayal Mittal, vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005. Late Prabhudayal Mittal executed a new registered Will Deed on 01.12.2005. 3. Mr. Paranjpe, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.4/Niranjan Kumar Mittal preferred a First Appeal, which was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006. He would further submit that Second Appeal No.511 of 2006 was preferred by Prabhudayal Mittal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 23.11.2006. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, Prabhudayal died; therefore, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC was moved by Chandra Prakash Mittal for substitution of legal representative of late Prabhudayal Mittal on 14.06.2008 and in that proceeding, the Coordinate Bench remitted back the matter to the learned Trial Court to hold an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the 3 CPC and after inquiry, to submit its report along with evidence. Mr. Paranjpe would further submit that the learned Trial Court framed a specific issue “as to whether Chandraprakash Mittal is the legal representative of late Prabhudayal Mittal by virtue of the Will Deed or not?”. He would contend that the learned Trial Court considered and decided the validity of the Will Deed, which was never directed in Second Appeal No.511 of 2006 by the High Court. He would also submit that the learned Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and also recorded a finding that the suit property is a joint Hindu family property; the late Prabhudayal Mittal had no right to execute a Will Deed in favour of Chandraprakash as the suit property was not his self- acquired property and the learned Trial Court included other properties which were not the suit property. Thus, he would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 22.09.2020 with a direction to decide the lis pursuant to the order passed in Second Appeal No.511 of 2006 dated 05.03.2020. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/Niranjan Kumar Mittal would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe. He would submit that the learned Trial Court was directed to consider the validity of the Will Deed while deciding the issue of legal representatives. He would further submit that the learned Trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the late Prabhudayal Mittal had no right to execute the Will Deed in favour of the petitioner, and this issue goes to the root of the case. He would contend that there was no partition between the parties; therefore, late Prabhu Dayal had no right to execute the will deed. He would further contend that the present petition deserves to be -4- dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on the record. 6. In Second Appeal No.511 of 2006, the Coordinate Bench in concluding para held as under:- “In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to direct the trial Court to try the question as to whether appellant-Chandra Prakash Mittal is legal representative of the deceased-Prabhudayal Mittal on the strength of Will deed dated 01.12.2005 and to return the records together with evidence during such trial as also finding and reason therefore within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. The parties shall adduce their evidence oral and documentary both in support of opposition to the claim based on Will.” 7. A perusal of the above-quoted part of the order would show that there was only a direction to decide the issue of the legal representative according to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, and with regard to other issues which have been dealt with by the learned Trial Court, there was no direction at all. 8. The order impugned would show that the learned Trial Court considered the issue of the right of the late Prabhudayal Mittal to execute the Will Deed and the nature of the property, and thus, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction. 9. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 22.09.2020 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court to decide the case pursuant to the direction issued in Second Appeal No.511 of 2006 dated 05.03.2020, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 5 14.8.2025. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is
Decision
disposed of. Sd/- Rekha (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge