1 CGHC010307602026 2026:CGHC:38009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 187 of 2026 Pinki Ratnakar W/o Late Shri Vikas Ratnakar Aged About 24 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Pinki Banjare D/o Dhansingh Banjare), Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village- Lawan, Tahsil- Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - Lainbai W/o Late Baldau Ratnakar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Lawan, Tahsil- Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Prabha Ratnakar D/o Late Baldau Ratnakar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Lawan, Tahsil- Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Pratibha Ratnakar D/o Late Baldau Ratnakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Mopka, Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Branch Office- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Public In-Large District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondents : None (advance copy served) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 25/08/2026 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.25 17:07:00 +0530 2 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Civil Revision under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1925") has been preferred by the applicant, challenging the judgment dated 23.05.2026 passed by the First District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar1, in Civil Appeal No. 16/2024 (Lainbai and others vs. Pinki Banjare and others). By the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara2, in Succession Case No. 02/2023 (Pinki Ratnakar vs. Public at large and another), and remanded the matter with a direction to implead Respondent No. 1 (Lainbai, mother of the deceased, Vikas Ratnakar) and thereafter decide the application filed by the applicant under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 afresh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, Pinki Ratnakar, is the wife of the deceased, late Vikas Ratnakar, whereas Respondent No. 1, Lainbai, wife of late Baldau Ratnakar, is the mother of late Vikas Ratnakar. It is contended that since the wife alone had filed the application under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, the learned Trial Court had rightly allowed the application. However, the same was quashed in the appeal filed by the respondents, which the applicant argues is perverse and illegal; therefore, the case may be admitted for hearing. 4. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2026 passed by the learned First District Judge, Balodabazar, shows that Respondent No. 1, Lainbai, is the mother of the deceased, Vikas Ratnakar. The said fact is duly accepted by the counsel for the applicant herein. However, without impleading the 1 Hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Court". 2 Hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court". 3 mother (Respondent No. 1), the applicant, Pinki, filed an application under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 before the Trial Court and obtained an order in her favour on 20.02.2023. 5. Respondent No.1, Smt. Lainbai, being the mother of the deceased, late Vikas Ratnakar, is a Class-I legal heir under the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As such, she is a necessary legal party to the succession application. However, by concealing this fact and without impleading her as a party, the applicant herein obtained an order from the Trial Court, which is unfair and illegal. Under these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error of law in remanding the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to implead Respondent No. 1 (the mother) as a party and to pass a fresh order after providing due opportunity to adduce evidence. 6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby affirmed. 7. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay