The Madhya Pradesh High Court criticized a trial court judge, stating she has no basic knowledge of law, and ordered training over serious procedural lapses.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Gwalior: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior recently delivered a ruling highlighting the importance of judicial officers’ adherence to procedural law. Justice Hirdesh, presiding over the case, not only set aside the trial court’s order rejecting substitution of a petitioner as a legal representative but also expressed serious concern over the presiding officer’s lack of basic procedural knowledge.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a civil suit for declaration, partition, and injunction filed by Munni Devi, who claimed a one-third share in agricultural land at Gwalior. During her lifetime, Munni Devi executed a will in favour of her husband and children. After her death on 12 May 2024, her son, Pawan Pathak, sought substitution as plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, relying on the will.
However, the trial court rejected his application on 8 January 2025, reasoning that other heirs named in the will were not impleaded. Aggrieved, Pathak approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Also Read: GST Revision 2025: What Becomes Cheaper, What Gets Expensive? | Explained
High Court’s Observations
Justice Hirdesh found that the trial court had committed a fundamental error of law by dismissing the substitution application. Referring to Section 2(11) CPC, the Court reiterated that:
- A legatee under a valid will is a “legal representative” who steps into the shoes of the deceased.
- In the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, such substitution cannot be refused.
The Court relied on precedents such as:
- Shakuntla v. Shaturghan (1993) 1 MPWN 99
- Dolai Molliko v. Krushna Chandra Patnaik (AIR 1967 SC 49)
Both cases support the principle that a legatee represents the estate of the deceased and can be impleaded without further inquiry, unless fraud is alleged.
Criticism of the Trial Court’s Order
The High Court noted two procedural lapses:
- Once the substitution application was rejected, no plaintiff survived to prosecute the suit, which should have led the trial court to treat the matter as abated.
- Instead, the case was incorrectly fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence, revealing a serious lack of understanding of procedural law.
In strong words, Justice Hirdesh remarked:
“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.”
Court’s Directions
Allowing the petition, the High Court:
- Set aside the trial court’s order.
- Directed substitution of Pawan Pathak as plaintiff.
- Ordered the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
- Forwarded a copy of the judgment to the District Judge, the Director of JOTRI, and the Registrar General for appropriate action and training of the officer concerned.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Pratika Pathak, Rajiv Raghuvanshi
Respondents: Advocates Tara Chandra Narwariya, Dhirendra Singh Chouhan, Man Singh Jadon, Government Advocate (for State).
Case Title:
Pawan Pathak v. Nathuram and Others
MISC. PETITION No. 440 of 2025
Read Order Here:
Click Here to Read More Reports On GST