Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2025 MPHC-GWL 30824
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
  • Article 137 of Limitation Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2025 MPHC-GWL 30824
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
  • Article 137 of Limitation Act
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Nijamuddeen v. M.P.Waqf Board

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

    AT GWALIOR

    BEFORE

    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 28thOF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 105 of 2013

    NIJAMUDDEEN AND OTHERS

    Versus

    M.P.WAQF BOARD AND OTHERS

    Appearance:

    Shri Sanjeev Tiwari - Proxy counsel on behalf of Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for proposed LRs of applicant No.1 & 4.

    Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for respondent No.1.

    ORDER

    Heard on I.A. No.8652/2025, this is an application for substitution of legal representatives of applicant No.1, applicant No.4 as well as for deleting the name of applicant No.7.

    It is submitted by counsel for proposed LRs of applicant No.1 & 4 that since the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC are not applicable to civil revisions, therefore, even if the application was not filed within a period of 90 days, still the revision would not abate.

    The aforesaid contention made by counsel for proposed LRs of applicant No.1 & 4 cannot be accepted.

    Even if the applicant is of the view that provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC are not applicable to civil revision and the revision would not abate after expiry of 90 days but still Article 137 of Limitation Act would apply and the application for bringing legal representatives should have been filed

    1

    (G. S. AHLUWALIA)

    JUDGE

    within a period of 3 years. According to applicants themselves, the applicant No.4 has died on 07.02.2022 but whereas this application has been filed on 13.11.2025 i.e. after a period of three years.

    Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that this civil revision against the dead person i.e. applicant No.4 has to be dismissed as abated. As a consequence thereof, the entire civil revision is hereby dismissed as abated.

    Aman

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Nijamuddeen v. M.P.Waqf Board
    (Nov 28, 2025)