1 2026:CGHC:23406-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 112 of 2017 Baldau Prasad S/o Late Jaganath Prasad, Aged About 84 Years Caste Kesharwani, R/o Shivrinarayan, Mahantpara, Tahsil Navagadh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) --- Appellant versus Neeraj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Parmeshwar Gupta, Aged About 31 Years R/o Shivrinarayan, Mahantpara, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board (14.05.2026) Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2016, passed in in Civil Suit No.1-A/2010, whereby learned District Judge, District Janjgir-Champa has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 2. Today the appeal is listed for consideration on report submitted by the Principal District Judge, Janjgir-Champa dated 29.09.2025 under Rule 5 of the Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. This first appeal was filed by the appellant/plaintiff Baldau Prasad Kesharwani in the year 2017. During pendency of this appeal he died on 19.04.2024. After his death, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.PC. is filed by one Jugal Kishore Kesharwani stating him to be sole legal representative of deceased Baldau Prasad. Application was supported with an affidavit and enclosing death certificate of Baldau Prasad (sole appellant). 4. Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. was replied by respondent/defendant stating that applicant – Jugal Kishore Kesharwani has made wrong submission by projecting himself to be son of deceased appellant Baldau Prasad. It is also specifically pleaded that Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is son of Dau Prasad Kesharwani. Baldau Prasad was issue less. Dau Prasad Kesharwani were having five children out of which Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is one of them and in support of his contention, respondent/defendant has enclosed the copy of Dakhil Kharij Register (Admission Register) wherein name of Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is placed at Sr. No.4051 mentioning name of his father as Dau Prasad. 5. High Court while considering the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. as also the objection raised by respondent/defendant in their reply had passed an order dated 08.09.2025 for conducting an enquiry in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 of C.P.C. Trial Court/Principal District & Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa was directed to conduct enquiry on 3 the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. and returned the record along with report with regard to legal representative of deceased appellant Baldau Prasad within 30 days from the date of receipt of order. 6. Trial Court after receipt of record had recorded the first proceedings on 13.09.2025. Notices were issued to the respective parties therein. Defendant therein had produced the relevant records on 15.09.2025 on which date proposed legal representative of deceased appellant was not present and thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of evidence. Proposed legal representative of deceased appellant was again noticed by special messenger. On 19.09.2025, defendant appeared before the trial Court, produced the relevant documents and have also submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C.. On 26.09.2025, proposed legal representative of deceased appellant submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. and thereafter, the proposed legal representative of deceased appellant was examined and cross-examined as also defendant was also examined and cross- examined. No other witnesses were examined by both the sides and thereafter, the case was kept for report. 7. Trial Court/Principal District and Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa vide its report dated 29.09.2025 upon examining the documents placed and appreciating the evidence of proposed legal representative of deceased appellant and defendants had observed that Baldau Prasad was brother of Dau Prasad. According to family tree, Baldau Prasad was issue less. His brothers are pre-deceased and in present, son and daughters and wife of brothers of deceased Baldau Prasad are 4 reported to be alive and accordingly submitted the report dated 29.09.2025. 8. Learned counsel for proposed legal representative of deceased appellant/plaintiff has not disputed or objected the report submitted by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa dated 29.09.2025, however, an attempt is made to submit that proposed legal representative of deceased appellant/plaintiff was adopted son of deceased appellant Baldau Prasad. 9. Submission of counsel for proposed legal representative of deceased appellant/plaintiff is opposed by learned counsel for respondent and would submit that the submission of learned counsel for proposed legal representative of deceased appellant was not correct. 10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the proceedings of enuiry available in record of trial Court, which is forwarded based on the order passed by this Court on 08.09.2025. 11. Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. would show that the application is filed along with an affidavit of Jugal Kishore Kesharwani projecting himself to be the sole legal heir of deceased appellant. In this application, there is no pleading or averments that he being adopted son of sole appellant is his legal representative but only mentions that Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is son of deceased sole appellant. In the enquiry, Jugal Kishore, who is projecting himself to be the sole legal representatives of deceased appellant Baldau Prasad Kesharwani has examined himself as Witness No.1 and submitted affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. In para -2 of the affidavit, he stated that his biological father is Dau Prasad @ Dau Ram 5 Kesharwani and his adopted father was Baldau Prasad Kesharwani. Baldau Prasad Kesharwani being issue less adopted him at 10 years of his age by religious rituals and thereafter, he was brought up by Baldau Prasad Kesharwani but as his adoption was after recording of his name in the admission register, therefore, his father’s name is mentioned as Dau Prasad Kesahrwani. He also stated that Baldau Prasad Kesharwani in affidavit executed by him dated 27.12.2013 had made statement that Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is his son and in certificate issued by the President, Nagar Panchayat, Shivrinarayan, it is mentioned that Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is son of Baldau Prasad Kesharwani. He also stated that his name is recorded as son of Baldau Prasad in Aadhar Card, PAN Card and Election Card.. He was cross-examined in the enquiry proceedings, wherein he admitted that in his school records, name of father is mentioned as Dau Prasad. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he could not able to tell as to in which date and year, he was adopted. No proceeding is recorded for adoption. He has not placed any photographs at the time of adoption. He admitted that in all school records, name of his father is mentioned as Dau Prasad. He admitted that in PAN Card, name of his mother is not mentioned. He also admitted that name of wife of Baldau Prasad was Shakuntala Bai. In a question posed by trial Court, he admitted that Baldau Prasad were four brothers, Satyanarayan, Onkar Praasd, Baldau Prasad and Dau Prasad. All four brothers died. His biological father is having three sons and two daughters namely Mahendra Kumar Kesharwani, Kheduram Kesharwani and Jugal Kishore Kesharwani and Smt. Radha Bai and Neera Bai Kesharwani. His aunt Vijay Kumari is alive. She is having one daughter Anita 6 Kumari (predeceased) and Pankaj, Neeraj and Dhiraj are son of Anita Kumari. His aunt Urmila Bai wife of Onkar is alive and she is having three sons namely Sanjay Kumar, Raju Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. He stated that he himself is having one son and one daughter. This witness has not examined any other witness, family members elder to him or relative or the local villages elder to him as witness to adoption ceremony to have taken place. 12. Defendant has also examined himself as Defendant Witness No.1. He stated that Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is not son of Baldau Prasad but of Dau Ram. Produced copy of admission register in proof thereof. It is also stated that civil litigation was filed by Baldau Prasad Kesharwani against Dau Prasad @ Dauram Kesharwani (father of Jugal Kishore Kesharwani) and after death of Dau Prasad @ Dauram, Jugal Kishore and others were impleaded as legal representation of Dau Prasad @ Dau Ram Kesharwani. It is also stated that Baldau Prasad Kesharwani has filed revenue appeal before before the Sub-Divisional Officer against Pankaj Gupa and others in which Neeraj Kumar Gupta was also one of the party. He stated that in that memo of appeal, Baldau Prasad has impleaded Jugal Kishore Kesharwani as son of Dau Prasad. He in support of his contention filed relevant document, which are marked as Ex.NA-1 to Ex.NA-9. 13. Claim of Jugal Kishore Kesharwani is based on his adoption by sole appellant Baldau Prasad Kesharwani. Adoption of a child by any person is to be proved in accordance with law. Except the self serving statement of Jugal Kishore Kesharwani, no other person has been examined as witness to prove give and take ceremony or any other 7 ceremony for adopting Jugal Kishore Kesharwani by Baldau Prasad. No such evidence was brought on record. Learned counsel for proposed legal representative of deceased appellant has also not made any other statement except defending the plea to be adoptive son of sole appellant Baldau Prasad. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, we are of the considered view that in an enquiry, applicant Jugal Kishore Kesahrwa failed to prove that he is son of Baldau Prasad Kesharwani in accordance with law by placing admissible piece of evidence in the facts of the case. 15. Considering the enquiry report submitted by trial Court in its entirety along with evidence brought on record, we are of the considered view that proposed legal representative of deceased applicant claiming himself to be son cannot be said to be sole legal representative of deceased appellant, therefore, application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. is liable to be and it is hereby rejected. 16. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as abetted. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Balram