Allahabad High Court
MEERA DEVIversusRAJDEV AND 13 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the lower court's order of substitution and delay condonation.
Summary
The petitioner, Meera Devi, challenged an order that substituted the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff in Original Suit No. 579 of 2006. The plaintiff died on 15 January 2025, and under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, proceedings were abated until the heirs were brought on record. The trial court allowed a delay condonation application and approved the substitution on 9 January 2026 despite the petitioner's objection to the delay. The petitioner argued that the delay could not be condoned and that the substitution was improper. The High Court held that a liberal approach is appropriate in substitution matters and found no sufficient ground to interfere, thereby disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the substitution application can be condoned under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC
- Whether the substitution of legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff was valid despite the alleged delay
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order 22 Rule 3
Subjects
- substitution of parties
- delay condonation
- civil procedure
- legal heirs
- Article 227
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5875 of 2026
Meera Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rajdev And 13 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Bali Ram
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri. Ram Bali Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices
are not being issued to the plaintiff-respondents, proforma defendant-
respondents.
3. The case of the defendant-petitioner is that the Original Suit No.579 of
2006 (Rajdev vs. Meera Devi and others) came to be instituted before the
court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate,
Ghazipur. During pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff no.2, namely, Ram
Sukh expired on 15.01.2025. Proceedings under Order 22, Rule 3 of the
C.P.C. stood abated for bringing on record the legal heirs. Since there was an
enormous delay and substitution application were also there, the court below
allowed the delay condonation application and substitution application on
09.01.2026. Against which, the defendant-petitioner has filed the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that there was an
enormous delay, which could not have been condoned in the manner in
which it has been done, particularly, when on mere asking the delay cannot
be condoned. Submission is that there happens to be an objection of the
defendant-petitioner also, which has been brushed aside
5. I have heard the submissions made at the bar and perused the record.
6. Simply by way of the order impugned, the legal heirs of the deceased
have been substituted, might be there was a delay but there was a delay
condonation application seeking condonation of delay. It is a settled law that
in the matters of substitution, a liberal approach is to be adopted in that
A227 No. 5875 of 2026
2
regard, particularly, when the legal heirs only get substituted while stepping
into the shoes of the deceased. However, they have to get their right
crystalized by substituting their claims.
7. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere. The present petition
stands disposed of.
May 6, 2026
Ajeet
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AJEET KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…