Patna High Court
Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra SinghversusSanjay Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The High Court held that the trial and appellate courts correctly exercised their jurisdiction in holding that the suit abated on the death of the sole plaintiff and that no jurisdictional error or material irregularity justified interference under Section 115 of the CPC.
Summary
The petitioners sought to set aside the orders that a title suit filed by the deceased plaintiff had abated on her death and that they could not be transposed or substituted as plaintiffs. They argued that they were legal heirs and purchasers of the suit property and therefore entitled to continue the suit. The trial court had rejected their applications for transposition and declared the suit abated, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The petitioners appealed in civil revision, contending that the courts erred in law and jurisdiction. The High Court examined the scope of Section 115 CPC and held that the lower courts had acted within their jurisdiction, correctly applying the provisions on abatement and substitution, and found no material irregularity. Consequently, the revision applications were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the death of the sole plaintiff caused the title suit to abate under the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to transposition or substitution as plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) and Order XXII of the CPC.
- Whether the trial court and appellate court committed a jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 of the CPC.
- Whether a revision under Section 115 can be entertained to re‑appreciate factual findings.
- Whether the sale deeds executed pendente lite confer a right to implead or continue the suit.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115, 151, Order I Rule 10(2), Order XXII Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 3, Order XXII Rule 9
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s. 52
Subjects
- civil revision
- abatement of suit
- substitution of plaintiff
- transposition
- CPC Section 115
- jurisdiction
- property dispute
- sale deed pendente lite
- order I rule 10
- order XXII
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.19 of 2021
======================================================
Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra Singh, aged about 72 years, Male Son of Late
Rameshwar Singh, Resident of Village-Mehus, P.S.-Mehus, District
Sheikhpura.
... ... Defendant-Appellant- Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Late Brahmdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Mehus,
P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
…………………………… Defendant 1st Set-Respondent-Opposite Party
2. Ranjay Kumar, Son of Late Brahmdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Mehus,
P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
3. Dilip Singh, Son of Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra Singh, Resident of
Village-Mehus, P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
………………………. Defendant 2nd Set-Respondents-Opposite Parties
4. Smt. Mithilesh Devi, Wife of Sri Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra Singh,
Resident of Village-Mehus, P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
... ..Intervenor Respondent-Opposite Party
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 22 of 2021
======================================================
Mithilesh Devi, aged about 68 years, Female Wife of Sri Kavindra Singh @
Kamendra Singh, Resident of Village-Mehus, P.S.-Mehus, District
Sheikhpura.
... ...Intervenor-Appellant- Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Late Brahmdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Mehus,
P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
…………………… Defendant 1st Respondent-Opposite Party
2. Ranjay Kumar, Son of Late Brahmdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Mehus,
P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
3. Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra Singh, Son of Late Rameshwar Singh,
Resident of Village-Mehus, P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
4. Dilip Singh, Son of Sri Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra Singh, Resident of
Village-Mehus, P.S.-Mehus, District Sheikhpura.
... ..Defendant 2nd Set-Respondent/s. Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 19 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
2/24
Mr. Syed Rizwanul Haque, Advocate
Ms. Seema Gazala, Advocate
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 22 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Syed Rizwanul Haque, Advocate
Ms. Seema Gazala, Advocate
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV ORDER
18 02-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Civil Revision Applications have been
filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) arising out of a common order
dated 12.11.2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’)
passed by the learned District Judge, Sheikhpura (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal
Nos. 02 of 2019 and 03 of 2019, whereby both the appeals were
dismissed and the orders dated 10.02.2017 passed in Title Suit
No.14 of 2015 and the order dated 27.02.2019 passed in Misc.
Case Nos.12 of 2017 and 13 of 2017 by the learned Munsif,
Sheikhpura (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) were
affirmed. Since both the revision applications emanate from the
same Title Suit, involve common questions of facts and law, and
assail the same appellate order, they were heard together and are
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
3/24
being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts, are that Title Suit No.14 of 2015
was instituted by Mostt. Sharda Devi before the learned Trial
Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the deed of gift dated
08.11.1989 allegedly executed in favour of defendant no.1 was
illegal, void ab initio and not binding upon her. The plaintiff
also sought partition of the properties described in Schedule-II
of the plaint on the assertion that the same continued to remain
joint notwithstanding the execution of the alleged deed of gift.
During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died.
According to the petitioners, the plaintiff died on 15.04.2016
leaving behind her legal heirs, whereas defendant nos.1 and 2
asserted that she had died earlier on 28.02.2016. Consequent
upon the death of the plaintiff, defendant no.3, namely Kavindra
Singh, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with
Section 151 of the CPC praying to be transposed as a plaintiff
on the ground that he was one of the legal heirs of the deceased
plaintiff and had also acquired an interest in part of the suit
property by virtue of a registered sale deed allegedly executed
by the deceased in his favour prior to her death. A similar
application was also filed by Smt. Mithilesh Devi (petitioner in
Civil Revision No.22 of 2021) claiming transposition on the
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
4/24
basis of her alleged purchase of a portion of the suit property
from the deceased plaintiff.
4. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated
10.02.2017, rejected the applications seeking transposition and,
accepting the plea raised by defendant nos.1 and 2, held that the
suit had abated on account of the death of the sole plaintiff and
consequently closed the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners
and Smt. Mithilesh Devi (petitioner in Civil Revision No.22 of
2021) independently filed Misc. Case Nos.13 of 2017 and 12 of
2017 under Order XXII Rule 9(2) read with Order XXII Rule 3
and Section 151 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the
abatement and continuation of the suit. Both the Miscellaneous
Cases came to be dismissed by a common order dated
27.02.2019.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners in both the cases
i.e. Kavindra Singh @ Kamendra Singh and Smt. Mithilesh
Devi preferred Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.02 of 2019 and 03 of
2019 respectively before the learned Appellate Court. The
learned Appellate Court, by the common order dated
12.11.2020, dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the orders
dated 10.02.2017 and 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Trial
Court. The legality and correctness of the said common
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
5/24
appellate judgment are under challenge in the present Civil
Revision Applications.
6. Before the learned Appellate Court, Opposite Party
Nos.1 and 2 opposed both the appeals by filing their objections.
It was submitted that the appeals were not maintainable either in
law or on facts. According to them, the impugned order dated
10.02.2017 was passed after hearing all concerned parties and
had attained finality since neither an appeal nor a revision had
been preferred there against. It was further submitted that the
subsequent miscellaneous cases had been instituted only to
overcome the legal consequences flowing from the earlier order
dated 10.02.2017 and to create a fresh cause for filing an appeal.
7. The opposite parties further submitted that the
deceased plaintiff had herself instituted the suit against all the
defendants, including the present petitioners, alleging serious
acts of fraud and illegal deprivation of her rights. In such
circumstances, the petitioners, against whom allegations had
been levelled by the plaintiff, could not legally seek
transposition or substitution in the capacity of a plaintiff after
her death. It was also submitted that the petitioners himself had
pleaded in his written statement that the suit was not
maintainable and was liable to be dismissed and, therefore, he
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
6/24
could not subsequently assert a right to continue the very same
suit as a substituted plaintiff. It was alleged that the sale deeds
relied upon by the petitioners and his wife were executed after
the death of the plaintiff and were not genuine.
8. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the rival
submissions and the records of Title Suit No.14 of 2015, the
learned Appellate Court found that the order dated 10.02.2017
rejecting the prayer for transposition and recording abatement
had been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties. The learned Appellate Court further noticed
that the said order had never been directly challenged by the
petitioners of both the cases before any superior forum and had,
therefore, attained finality. The learned Appellate Court also
observed that the petitioners had, in his own written statement,
questioned the maintainability of the suit and sought its
dismissal. In view of such pleadings, the learned Appellate
Court held that the petitioners could not subsequently seek
substitution or transposition as a plaintiff for prosecuting the
same suit. It further held that, in the facts of the case, the right to
sue did not survive within the meaning of Order XXII Rule 3 of
the CPC and, therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly
treated the suit as having abated on the death of the sole
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
7/24
plaintiff. On the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Appellate
Court concluded that the appeals were devoid of merit and
accordingly dismissed both Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.02 of 2019
and 03 of 2019 by the common order dated 12.11.2020 while
affirming the orders passed by the learned Trial Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that both the learned Appellate Court and
Trial Court have committed a manifest error of law in holding
that Title Suit No.14 of 2015 stood abated on the death of the
sole plaintiff. It is submitted that no formal order declaring the
suit to have abated had ever been passed in accordance with the
provisions of Order XXII of the CPC and, therefore, the learned
Appellate Court and Trial Court erred in proceeding on the
assumption that the suit had automatically abated. It is further
submitted that once the right to sue survives, the Court is
required to permit substitution or transposition of the persons
entitled to continue the proceedings instead of terminating the
suit on a technical ground.
9.i. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that the petitioner in Civil Revision No.19 of 2021,
being one of the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff as well as a
purchaser of a portion of the suit property under a registered
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
8/24
sale deed allegedly executed by the deceased during her
lifetime, had acquired a substantial and direct interest in the
subject matter of the litigation. Learned counsel submitted that
the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2)
read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking transposition as a
plaintiff ought to have been allowed, particularly when the relief
claimed in the suit related to the estate of the deceased plaintiff
and the petitioners had a legally recognizable interest in
prosecuting the suit.
9.ii. It is next submitted that the learned Trial Court
committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed
by the petitioner (Kavindra Singh) for transposition and
thereafter dismissing the subsequent applications filed under
Order XXII Rule 9(2) read with Order XXII Rule 3 and Section
151 of the CPC without properly examining whether the right to
sue survived. According to the learned counsel, both the learned
Appellate Court and Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
petitioners and the other revision petitioners had approached the
Court within the prescribed period seeking to continue the
proceedings and, therefore, the question of abatement did not
arise in the facts of the present case.
9.iii. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
9/24
impugned orders have been passed by adopting an unduly
technical approach, resulting in the closure of the suit without
adjudication on its merits. It is submitted that the dispute
pertains to valuable immovable property and the legality of a
registered deed of gift, which ought to have been decided after a
full-fledged trial. According to the learned counsel, the learned
Appellate Court and Trial Court failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in them by law by refusing to permit
continuation of the suit, thereby causing serious prejudice to the
petitioners in both the Civil Revision.
9.iv. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for
the petitioners in both the cases that the impugned common
order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Court
affirming the orders dated 10.02.2017 and 27.02.2019 passed by
the learned Trial Court, suffers from patent illegality and
material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and is,
therefore, liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order and
submitted that both the learned Appellate Court and Trial Court
have concurrently recorded findings of fact after due
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
10/24
appreciation of the pleadings and materials available on record,
and the same do not warrant interference in exercise of the
limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. It
is submitted that the sole plaintiff having died during the
pendency of the suit, and no valid substitution having been
effected in accordance with the provisions of Order XXII of the
CPC, the suit stood abated by operation of law. According to the
learned counsel, the learned Trial Court merely recorded the
statutory consequence of such abatement and rightly rejected the
subsequent applications filed by the petitioners.
10.i. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner (Kavindra Singh), who was defendant no.3 in the
original suit, had himself filed a written statement specifically
asserting that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be
dismissed. It is submitted that having adopted such a stand, the
petitioner (Kavindra Singh) cannot subsequently seeks his
transposition as a plaintiff to prosecute the very same suit. It is
further submitted that the original plaintiff had levelled serious
allegations of fraud and collusion against all the defendants,
including the present petitioners, and therefore no community of
interest existed between the plaintiff and the petitioner
(Kavindra Singh) so as to justify his transposition as a plaintiff.
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
11/24
It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court and Trial Court
have rightly held that such transposition would fundamentally
alter the nature of the proceedings.
10.ii. It is next submitted that the petitioners as well as
his wife claimed title on the basis of alleged sale deeds executed
during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that
such transfers are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens embodied
under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore,
do not confer any independent right to seek impleadment or
transposition. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
failed to establish themselves as legal representatives of the
deceased plaintiff in accordance with law and have approached
the Court by suppressing material facts and relying upon
inconsistent documents regarding the date of death of the
plaintiff. Learned counsel submitted that such conduct
disentitles the petitioners from any discretionary relief in
revisional jurisdiction.
10.iii. Learned counsel further submitted that the
scope of interference under Section 115 of the CPC is extremely
limited and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. It is
submitted that the petitioners are merely seeking a re-
appreciation of the evidence and concurrent findings of fact
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
12/24
recorded by the learned Appellate Court and Trial Court, which
is wholly impermissible in revisional proceedings. In support of
the aforesaid proposition, reliance has been placed upon Major
S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, reported in 1963 SCC OnLine
SC 72; AIR 1964 SC 497, to submit that interference in revision
is confined to jurisdictional errors. Further, learned counsel put
his reliance upon Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 to submit that
revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of
evidence or interference with concurrent findings of fact; and
upon K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors., reported in (1998) 3
SCC 573, to submit that repeated litigation over settled issues
amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
10.iv. Learned counsel has also relied upon the
decisions in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors., reported in (1992) 2
SCC 524; Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Tosh
Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384;
and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency
Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported in
(2010) 7 SCC 417 to submit that transposition or impleadment
is permissible only where the applicant has a direct and legally
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
13/24
protectable interest in the subject matter and where such
impleadment is necessary for complete and effective
adjudication of the dispute. It is submitted that a purchaser
pendente lite does not acquire an independent right to be
impleaded or transposed and that, in the facts of the present
case, the interest of the petitioners being adverse to that of the
original plaintiff, the learned Appellate Court and Trial Court
have committed no illegality in rejecting their applications. On
these premises, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of both the
Civil Revision Applications.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have
carefully gone through the pleadings, the impugned orders
passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned
Trial Court and the materials brought on record. I have also
considered the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for
the parties. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and
submissions, the sole point that falls for determination in the
present Civil Revision Applications is whether the common
order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Court,
affirming the orders dated 10.02.2017 and 27.02.2019 passed by
the learned Trial Court suffer from any jurisdictional error,
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
14/24
patent illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of
jurisdiction so as to warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the
CPC.
12. Before adverting to the rival contentions on
merits, it is apposite to examine the scope and ambit of the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the
CPC. The jurisdiction conferred under the said provision is
supervisory and not appellate in nature. The revisional power is
intended to ensure that subordinate Courts act within the bounds
of the jurisdiction vested in them and follow the procedure
prescribed by law. It is well settled that this Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, does not
sit as a Court of appeal to reassess or re-appreciate the evidence
or to substitute its own conclusions merely because another
view is possible on the facts. Interference is warranted only
where the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law, has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested,
or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity. Mere errors of fact or even errors of law,
unless they have the effect of occasioning a jurisdictional failure
or a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, do not
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
15/24
justify interference in revision.
13. In the present case, the challenge is directed
against the concurrent orders of the learned Trial Court and the
learned Appellate Court whereby the applications preferred by
the petitioners for transposition, substitution and setting aside
the alleged abatement have been rejected. The petitioners seek
to assail the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court as
well as the learned Trial Court with regard to the effect of the
death of the sole plaintiff, the survival of the right to sue and
their entitlement to continue the proceedings. The question,
therefore, is not whether another view on the factual matrix is
possible, but whether the learned Appellate Court and Trial
Court, while adjudicating the applications under the provisions
of Order I and Order XXII of the CPC, have acted beyond the
jurisdiction vested in them, have declined to exercise
jurisdiction vested by law, or have exercised such jurisdiction in
a manner vitiated by patent illegality or material irregularity.
Unless such jurisdictional infirmity is demonstrably established
from the record, this Court would not be justified in unsettling
the concurrent findings merely because the petitioners seek a
different appreciation of the facts or a different interpretation of
the material available on record.
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
16/24
14. At the same time, it is equally well settled that
where a subordinate court proceeds on an erroneous assumption
regarding the extent of its jurisdiction, ignores a mandatory
statutory provision, declines to exercise a jurisdiction vested in
it, or adopts a procedure which has the effect of defeating the
ends of justice, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of
the CPC can be invoked to correct such jurisdictional error. It is,
therefore, in the light of these settled principles governing the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction that the legality and propriety
of the impugned orders passed by the learned Appellate Court as
well as the learned Trial Court are required to be examined.
15. The contours of revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the CPC has been enumerated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
Dilbahar Singh (supra), has observed as under:
“28. ………… Conceptually, revisional
jurisdiction is a part of appellate
jurisdiction but it is not vice versa. Both,
appellate jurisdiction and revisional
jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. No
party to the proceeding has an inherent
right of appeal or revision. An appeal is
continuation of suit or original proceeding,
as the case may be. The power of the
appellate court is coextensive with that of
the trial court. Ordinarily, appellate
jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts and
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
17/24
law but such jurisdiction may be limited by
the statute itself that provides for the
appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand,
revisional jurisdiction, though, is a part of
appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it
cannot be equated with that of a full-
fledged appeal. In other words, revision is
not continuation of suit or of original
proceeding. When the aid of Revisional
Court is invoked on the revisional side, it
can interfere within the permissible
parameters provided in the statute. It goes
without saying that if a revision is provided
against an order passed by the
Tribunal/appellate authority, the decision of
the Revisional Court is the operative
decision in law. In our view, as regards the
extent of appellate or revisional
jurisdiction, much would, however, depend
on the language employed by the statute
conferring appellate jurisdiction and
revisional jurisdiction.”
16. Moreover, the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the CPC have been authoritatively delineated by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society
v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659,
wherein it has been held that the revisional power is supervisory
in nature and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction;
interference is permissible only where the subordinate Court has
acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in the
exercise of such jurisdiction.
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
18/24
17. Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, this
Court proceeds to examine whether the impugned orders
disclose any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference
under Section 115 of the CPC. The challenge raised by the
petitioners essentially revolves around the findings recorded by
the learned Appellate Court and Trial Court that the suit had
abated on the death of the sole plaintiff, that the petitioners were
not entitled to be transposed or substituted in her place, and that
the subsequent applications filed under the provisions of Order
XXII of the CPC were not maintainable. Since these findings
form the very foundation of the impugned orders, it becomes
necessary to examine whether the learned Appellate Court and
the learned Trial Court have arrived at the said conclusions by
correctly appreciating the statutory scheme governing
abatement, substitution and transposition or whether, in doing
so, they have committed any jurisdictional error or material
irregularity so as to justify interference by this Court in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction.
18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court had
entertained all the applications preferred by the petitioners under
Order I Rule 10(2), Order XXII Rules 3, 9 and 10 read with
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
19/24
Section 151 of the CPC and afforded adequate opportunity of
hearing to all the contesting parties before passing the order
dated 10.02.2017. A perusal of the said order demonstrates that
the learned Trial Court examined the genealogy of the parties,
the nature of the reliefs claimed in the plaint, the rival claims
regarding the status of the petitioners, the plea of purchase set
up by the petitioners and the objections raised by the contesting
defendants before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners
were not entitled to be transposed or substituted in place of the
deceased plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Trial
Court either declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or
exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
19. It further appears from the record that after the
order dated 10.02.2017, the petitioners instituted Misc. Case
Nos.12 of 2017 and 13 of 2017 under Order XXII Rule 9(2)
read with Order XXII Rule 3 and Section 151 of the CPC
seeking substantially the same relief. The learned Trial Court,
while deciding the said miscellaneous proceedings vide order
dated 27.02.2019, recorded that the issues sought to be raised
therein had already been considered and decided on merits by
the earlier order dated 10.02.2017 and that no new circumstance
had been brought on record warranting reconsideration of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
20/24
matter. The learned Trial Court, therefore, declined to reopen the
issues already adjudicated and dismissed the miscellaneous
proceedings. Whether such conclusion is ultimately correct on
merits is not the determinative consideration in the present
revisions. The question is whether the learned Trial Court acted
within the bounds of its jurisdiction, and this Court finds no
jurisdictional infirmity in the procedure adopted or the decision-
making process.
20. The learned Appellate Court thereafter
independently examined the entire matter while deciding Misc.
Civil Appeal Nos.02 of 2019 and 03 of 2019. The learned
Appellate Court considered the rival submissions, scrutinized
the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed the
findings by assigning independent reasons. The learned
Appellate Court also noticed that the order dated 10.02.2017
had not been independently assailed before the appropriate
forum and that the subsequent proceedings were essentially
founded upon the very issues which had already been
adjudicated. The impugned appellate order, therefore, cannot be
said to suffer from any perversity or failure to exercise
jurisdiction warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
21. The principal endeavor of the petitioners before
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
21/24
this Court is to persuade this Court to take a view different from
that taken by the learned Appellate Court as well the learned
Trial Court with regard to the effect of the death of the sole
plaintiff, the entitlement of the petitioners to continue the
proceedings and the legality of the orders passed under Order I
Rule 10 and Order XXII of the CPC. Such an exercise would
necessarily require a fresh appreciation of the factual matrix and
a re-evaluation of the conclusions concurrently recorded by the
both the learned Courts. The revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the CPC is not intended to substitute the view of
the High Court for that of the subordinate courts merely because
another view is possible. As explained by the Supreme Court in
Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon and Ors. (supra), the
revisional power is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors
and does not permit the High Court to function as a court of first
appeal on facts.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Major S.S. Khanna v.
Brig. F.J. Dillon and Ors. (supra) has observed as under:
“32.The power given by Section 115 of the
Code is clearly limited to the keeping of the
Subordinate Courts within the bounds of
their jurisdiction. It does not comprehend
the power exercisable under the writ of
Prohibition or mandamus. It is also not a
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
22/24
full power of Certiorari inasmuch as it
arises only in a case of jurisdiction and not
in a case of error. It has been ruled by the
Judicial Committee and also by this Court
that the section is concerned with
jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone involving
a refusal to exercise jurisdiction where one
exists or an assumption of jurisdiction
where none exists and lastly acting with
illegality or material irregularity. Where
there is no question of jurisdiction in this
manner the decision cannot be corrected
for it has also been ruled that a Court has
jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as
rightly. But once a flaw of jurisdiction is
found the High Court need not quash and
remit as is the practice in English law
under the writ of certiorari, but pass such
order as it thinks fit.”
23. Having considered the record in its entirety, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have
failed to demonstrate that the learned Appellate Court as well as
the learned Trial Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in them
by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the
exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are the result of an
adjudicatory exercise undertaken after hearing the parties and
considering the materials placed on record. In the absence of
any jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the decision-
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
23/24
making process, no case for interference under Section 115 of
the CPC is made out. The point for determination is,
accordingly, answered against the petitioners.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
satisfied that the learned Trial Court, while passing the orders
dated 10.02.2017 and 27.02.2019, acted within the bounds of
the jurisdiction vested in it and considered the rival claims of
the parties in accordance with law. The learned Appellate Court
has also independently re-examined the matter and affirmed the
said orders by assigning cogent reasons. The petitioners have
failed to point out any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or
material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned
Appellate Court or the learned Trial Court so as to attract the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the
CPC. The grievances raised by the petitioners essentially invite
this Court to re-appreciate the factual findings concurrently
recorded by both the learned Courts, which is beyond the
permissible scope of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this
Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment and orders of the learned Appellate Court.
25. Accordingly, the impugned common order dated
12.11.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Sheikhpura in
Patna High Court C.R. No.19 of 2021(18) dt.02-07-2026
24/24
Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 02 of 2019 and 03 of 2019, affirming
the orders dated 10.02.2017 and 27.02.2019 passed by the
learned Munsif, Sheikhpura, are hereby affirmed.
26. The present Civil Revision Applications are,
accordingly, dismissed.
27. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.