38-J-WP-6483-24 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.6483 OF 2024 1. Smt. Reshma w/o Ravi Jaiswal Aged about 52yrs, Occ: Household 2. Hardik s/o Ravi Jaiswal Aged about 27 yrs, Occ: Business 3. Kartik s/o Ravi Jaiswal Aged about 22yrs, Occ: Student All Petitioners are R/o 'Shri Ganesh', 8, South Ambazari Road, Laxminagar, Nagpur-440022. … Petitioners -vs- 1. Rahul Suryalalji Jaiswal Age: 44 years, Occu: Business R/o: Shri Ganesh, 8, South Ambazari Road, Laxminagar, Nagpur-440022. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Having its Nagpur Divisional Office at "Akarshan Busiplex" 26, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-10Through its Senior Manager (RS), Shri. Manish s/o TulsiramNandle Aged about 42 yrs, Occ: Service, Office at"Akarshan Busiplex" 26, Central Bazar Road, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-10. … Respondents Shri S. S. Joshi, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Abhijeet Khare, Advocate for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 served. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : August 27, 2026 Oral Judgment : Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with 2026:BHC-NAG:11390 38-J-WP-6483-24 2/4 consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition challenges order dated 22/08/2024 passed below Exhibit-19 in Regular Civil Appeal No.258/2022 by the District Judge-13, Nagpur. The said application i.e Exhibit-19 on which the order was passed was filed by respondent No.1 herein Rahul s/o Suryalalji Jaiswal under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short, the Code) to add him as a respondent in the appeal. 3. As can be seen from the averments in the petition and the facts which are more or less admitted, that a suit was instituted bearing R.C.S. No.88/2018 by the respondent No.2 herein i.e. Indian Oil corporation Ltd. In the said suit, the plaint was rejected by the trial Court by resorting to Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. However, during pendency of the suit, on 19/02/2019 the defendant viz. Suryalal s/o Mahavirprasad Jaiswal died. It is also the matter of record that none of his legal representatives were brought on record. As stated supra, the said proceedings came to be rejected. 4. The respondent No.2 herein i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. chose to challenge the said rejection by filing appeal under Section 96 of the Code bearing R.C.A. No.258/2022. In the said appeal respondent No.1 herein Rahul Suryalalji Jaiswal filed an application 38-J-WP-6483-24 3/4 under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the said appeal. The said application was allowed by order dated 22/08/2024 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. I have heard Shri S. S. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Abhijeet Khare, learned counsel for respondent No.2. None appears for respondent No.1 though served. With the able assistance of the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record of the matter and also the impugned order. The impugned order proceeds on a premise that the applicant i.e. respondent No.1 herein was permitted to run the dealership after the death of Suryalal Jaiswal for temporary period and therefore presence of the applicant would be necessary. 6. In my considered opinion, the said order is totally flawed and perverse. As has been rightly relied by the counsel for the petitioner Shri Joshi, this Court in Madhukar Ramchandra Keni vs. Vasant Jagannath Patil and ors. 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 403 has categorically held that once the suit stands abated, the Court has no jurisdiction to substitute the heirs of the original plaintiff by taking recourse to the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code. 38-J-WP-6483-24 4/4 7. The impugned order seems to be contrary to the settled position of law as being a party on record as the legal representative and impleading him under Order I Rule 10 are two distinct concepts and they cannot be interpolated and interlinked with each other. The appellate court has lost sight of the said fact; the impugned order is perverse and cannot be sustained. 8. Hence, the following order is passed : (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated dated 22/08/2024 passed below Exhibit-19 in Regular Civil Appeal No.258/2022 by the District Judge-13, Nagpur is quashed and set aside. (iii) The application Exhibit-19 filed by the respondent No.1 is rejected. 9. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 31/08/2026 17:52:28