[2025:RJ-JP:1970] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 160/2014 1. Executive Engineer Irrigation Department Bundi 2. Assistant Engineer Irrigation Division, Hindoli, District Bundi. 3. District Collector Bundi. 4. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector Bundi. ----Appellants Versus Nathu S/o Chhotu, R/o Hindoli, District Bundi Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma and Mr. Uttam Jhajharia for Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/01/2025 1. Instant civil second appeal is preferred by appellants aggrieved from dismissal of civil regular appeal no.9/2011 on 11.02.2014 by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bundi affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2007 in Civil Suit No.51/2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bundi. 2. During course of arguments, it has come to the notice that the respondent-Nathu has expired on 20.04.2005 and his legal heirs were substituted before the trial Court. An appeal is preferred against a dead person before the first appellate court, but first appellate court has amended the title after taking on record the legal heirs of Nathu. Now again this second appeal is [2025:RJ-JP:1970] (2 of 3) [CSA-160/2014] preferred against dead person and an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is filed, but without any mention of date of death. 3. Learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of original plaintiff- Nathu has referred death certificate of Nathu and submitted that after death of Nathu this fact was already considered by the trial court during pendency of Civil Suit and after taking on record legal heirs, the evidence was led by LRs. of plaintiff. The counsel for appellants have no answer to aforesaid. 4. A perusal of certified copy of record submitted for perusal by the counsel for respondent indicate that after death of Nathu, his legal heirs Smt. Heera (wife) and Kajodi (daughter), Ram Lal (son) and Nand Kishore (son) were substituted in place of deceased- plaintiff (Nathu). The evidence of Ram Lal was recorded by the trial court as PW1. The judgment also indicate the same. 5. This fact was also noticed by the appellate court but it has permitted substitution and amended cause-title was filed before the appellate court, by present appellants. A perusal of the instant appeal clearly indicate that in most careless manner, this appeal was filed and after notice to respondent, the fact of death of sole respondent on 20.04.2005 came to notice of the Court. Despite substitution, already taken place before the trial Court and the Appellate Court, even then application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC was filed in the instant second appeal. In para no.3 of application it was mentioned that after passing of order dated 04.04.2023, the officer incharge has gathered information about the legal heirs of respondent. It is quite strange [2025:RJ-JP:1970] (3 of 3) [CSA-160/2014] that the officer incharge has neither gone through the file nor read the judgment of the trial court and appellate court. 6. This appeal was preferred by a Government Counsel without reading the record of the trial and appellate court. If the proceeding of the court below and judgments of the court below were not read by Govt. Counsel, then a proper appeal, cannot be drafted. 7. Considering aforesaid, there is no ground of substitution in instant appeal. No application is filed for amendment in memo of appeal. The appeal is filed against of dead person and same is not maintainable. 8. Having considered the circumstances of the case, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of aforesaid, the instant civil second appeal, is hereby dismissed. 10. Misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Arun/71