Smt. Champa Devi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1129828
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-19-2014
AppellantSmt. Champa Devi
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Excerpt:
- 1 -1 w.a.no.921/2011 19/2/2014 : none appears for the appellant. shri s.p.rai, learned panel lawyer for the respondents. this writ appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the m.p.uchcha nyalaya (khand nyayapeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam, 2005 challenging an order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned writ court in w.p.no.11094/2011. appellant claims to have married late shri kamta prasad richharia sometimes in the year 1992. shri richharia retired from government service on 31.8.2002 and while he was alive, he has instituted a civil suit for declaration and injunction. after death of shri kamta prasad richharia appellant received the family pension. however, after death of shri kamta prasad appellant filed an application for impleading her as a party as legal heir of late shri kamta prasad in a proceeding held under order 22 rule 3 cpc. the learned civil court in a proceeding held under order 22 rule 3 cpc i.e.the court of civil judge, class ii, naogaon on 23.4.2010 rejected the application under order 22 rule 3 cpc and based on the evidence that came on record held that late kamta prasad richhariya was never married and it was held that the present appellant smt. champa devi is not the legal -:2:- heir of shri kamta prasad. based on this finding when the family pension was with-held, appellant had filed the writ petition. learned writ court has found that so long as the order passed by the trial court on 23.4.2010 subsists and finding is recorded against the appellant to say that she is not legal heir of late kamta prasad, she cannot claim family pension and in stopping the family pension, it is held that treasury officer has not committed any error. we are of the considered view that in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds as are indicated herein above, learned writ court has not committed any error warranting interference. appeal is therefore, dismissed. ( rajendra menon) (a.k.sharma) judge judge mrs.mishra 2
Judgment:

- 1 -1 W.A.No.921/2011 19/2/2014 : None appears for the appellant.

Shri S.P.Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.

This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging an order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.No.11094/2011.

Appellant claims to have married Late Shri Kamta Prasad Richharia sometimes in the year 1992.

Shri Richharia retired from Government service on 31.8.2002 and while he was alive, he has instituted a Civil Suit for declaration and injunction.

After death of Shri Kamta Prasad Richharia appellant received the family pension.

However, after death of Shri Kamta Prasad appellant filed an application for impleading her as a party as legal heir of Late Shri Kamta Prasad in a proceeding held under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.

The learned Civil Court in a proceeding held under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC i.e.the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Naogaon on 23.4.2010 rejected the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and based on the evidence that came on record held that Late Kamta Prasad Richhariya was never married and it was held that the present appellant Smt.

Champa Devi is not the legal -:2:- heir of Shri Kamta Prasad.

Based on this finding when the family pension was with-held, appellant had filed the writ petition.

Learned Writ Court has found that so long as the order passed by the Trial Court on 23.4.2010 subsists and finding is recorded against the appellant to say that she is not legal heir of Late Kamta Prasad, she cannot claim family pension and in stopping the family pension, it is held that Treasury Officer has not committed any error.

We are of the considered view that in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds as are indicated herein above, learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting interference.

Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

( Rajendra Menon) (A.K.Sharma) Judge Judge mrs.mishra 2