2025:JHHC:16083-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.457 of 2024 ----- Arvind Kumar Bhadani, S/o Late Ramchandra Bhadani, Resident of Bhadani Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O.- Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.- Telaiya, District-Koderma. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. 2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma. 3. Ajit Kumar Bhadani, Son of Late Gopi Krishna Bhadani, Resident of Bishrambag Road, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, District- Koderma. 4. Ranjit Kumar Bhadani, Son of Late Gopi Krishna Bhadani, Resident of Bishrambag Road, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, District-Koderma. 5. Satyajit Bhadani, Son of Late Gopi Krishna Bhadani, Resident of Bishrambag Road, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District- Koderma. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II For the Res. Nos.3-5: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate (Pvt. Respondents) Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No.09 Date: 18.06.2025 Per: Rajesh Shankar, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5265 of 2018, whereby the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma-respondent no.1 in Mutation Revision Case No. 07 of 2017 has been quashed and set aside being null and void, as the said order was passed against a dead person. 2. The fact of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the mother of the writ petitioners (respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein), namely, Indu Devi was owner of 1.92 acres of land at Mouza - Moriyawan and 3.73 acres of land at Mouza – Jhalpo. After her death, the father of the writ petitioners, namely, Babu Gopi 2025:JHHC:16083-DB 2 Krishna Prasad @ Gopi Krishna Bhadani became ower of the said land and executed registered gift deeds in favour of his three sons i.e. the writ petitioners. Thereafter, he filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Koderma (respondent no. 2) for mutation of the names of the writ petitioners in the revenue record and consequentially for issuance of rent receipts in their favour. The appellant filed objection to the said mutation application with respect to the land in question pertaining to Mouja Jhalpo, which was numbered as Misc. Case No.03 of 2015- 16 and the respondent no.2 vide order dated 03.01.2017 directed the Circle Officer, Koderma to take steps for mutating the land in question of Mouja Jhalpo in favour of the mother of the writ petitioners. 3. The appellant preferred revision being Mutation Revision No.07 of 2017 before the respondent no.1 and in the said case the father of the writ petitioners was arrayed as opposite party no.2. Subsequently, the appellant filed substitution petition dated 01.07.2017 for substitution of the writ petitioners in the said revision, as their father had died on 02.04.2017. However, respondent no. 1 without passing any order on the substitution petition, passed the order dated 12.07.2018 whereby the order dated 03.01.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Case No.03 of 2015-16 was set aside and the matter was remanded to decide it afresh. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent nos.3 to 5 preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5265 of 2018, which was disposed of 2025:JHHC:16083-DB 3 vide order dated 09.05.2024 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 with an observation that the said order was a nullity, as the same was passed against a dead person. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that a proper substitution application was already filed before the respondent no.1 on 01.07.2017 for bringing on record the names of the legal heirs of Babu Gopi Krishna Prasad @ Gopi Krishna Bhadani, who had died on 02.04.2017. 6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018, could have remanded the matter to the respondent no. 1 for passing an appropriate order on the substitution petition which was filed for substituting the legal heirs of Babu Gopi Krishna Prasad @ Gopi Krishna Bhadani. 7. It is also argued that the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the error was on the part of the respondent no. 1 in not passing any order on the substitution application. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 1 without there being any fault on behalf of the appellant thereby depriving him of challenging the order passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2015-16. 8. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the own factual admission of the petitioners that their mother namely Indu Devi had also died much prior to filing of the Misc. Case No. 03 of 2015-16 and as such the order 2025:JHHC:16083-DB 4 passed in favour of said Indu Devi by the respondent no. 2 was also a nullity. 9. The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the land in question should have been mutated in the name of the private respondents. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 being nullity as the same was passed against dead person. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 11. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is remediless and as such the matter should be remitted back to the respondent no. 1 for deciding the matter afresh after substituting the respondent nos. 3 to 5 and on giving the opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 12. We have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Banwari Lal (dead) by Legal Representatives and Another Vs. Balbir Singh, reported in 2016 (1) SCC 607, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Order XXII C.P.C. are not penal in nature. It is a rule of procedure and substantial rights of the parties cannot be defeated by pedantic approach by observing strict adherence to the procedural aspect of law. 13. In the case of Banwari Lal (Supra.), the judgment of constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the 2025:JHHC:16083-DB 5 case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others Vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (dead) by LRs and Others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272 has also been referred wherein it was held that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. It has further been held that a careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22 CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that those were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination in an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and thereby non-suit the others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain intact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 CPC are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. 14. On perusal of the record, it appears that though the father of the writ petitioners had died on 02.04.2017, the revision petition was filed by the appellant on 03.04.2017 arraying the father of the petitioners as opposite party no. 2. During the pendency of the 2025:JHHC:16083-DB 6 revision petition, a substitution application was filed by the appellant on 01.07.2017 for substitution of the petitioners being the heirs of the opposite party no. 2, however no order was passed by the respondent no. 1 on the said application and the same was kept pending and the respondent no. 1 mistakenly proceeded to hear the revision. Finally, the order dated 12.07.2018 was passed and the matter was remanded to the respondent no. 2 for deciding it afresh. 15. Though we find no infirmity in the observation of the learned Single Judge that the order dated 12.07.2018 which was passed against a dead person was a nullity, yet we are of the view that while setting aside the order dated 12.07.2018, the learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter to the respondent no. 1 to first decide the substitution application of the appellant and then to pass a fresh order on due compliance of the principle of natural justice. We also find substance in the contention of the appellant that after the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Single judge, he has become remediless. 16. Another aspect in the matter is that the order of the respondent no. 2 passed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2015-16 for opening of Jamabandi in the name of Indu Devi is also a nullity as the same has been passed against dead person and as such the said order will also not serve any purpose to the petitioners/private respondents. Thus, the order of remand would be fruitful for both the parties. 2025:JHHC:16083-DB 7 17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 1 to first pass an appropriate order in the pending substitution application dated 01.07.2017 filed by the appellant and then to decide the revision afresh on providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 18. The order dated 09.05.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5265 of 2018 is modified to the said extent. 19. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/Rohit