In a recent ruling of Nasim Razzak Ghanchi & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others dated July 6, 2024, the Small Causes Court faced a contentious situation regarding the legal representation of a deceased plaintiff. The petitioners, challenging the court’s decision, argued for their inclusion as legal representatives, while the court permitted another party, Respondent No. 2, to be recognized as the legal representative instead.

The dispute centers around the marital status of the deceased plaintiff at the time of his death. The petitioners assert that Respondent No. 2 was still married to another individual and that she has wrongly claimed to be the deceased's wife. They also contend that Petitioner No. 2 is the biological son of the deceased and Petitioner No. 1, born out of wedlock, further complicating the matter. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, argues that her marriage to the deceased was valid and that their previous marriage was dissolved through an oral divorce on September 11, 2012.

The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court made a determination based primarily on the pleadings and accompanying documents submitted by both parties. This raised a critical question regarding the application of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule addresses how courts should handle disputes over who qualifies as a legal representative of a deceased party.

According to the provisions, when such a dispute arises, it is the court's responsibility to resolve the matter. Importantly, this ruling does not equate to a definitive decision regarding inheritance rights or complex issues related to the deceased’s estate.

The legal framework necessitates a summary inquiry rather than a comprehensive examination of rights and inheritances. In prior cases, including notable judgments from the Supreme Court, it has been established that the determination of legal representation is a preliminary issue that allows the suit to proceed without resolving deeper inheritance conflicts.

Furthermore, the inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 should involve not only the evaluation of documents but also the potential recording of oral evidence, as emphasized by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This highlights the need for a thorough yet efficient examination of the facts surrounding the claims of legal representation.

Recognizing these legal principles, the current court decided to remand the matter back to the Small Causes Court for a detailed summary inquiry. The original order was set aside, and both applications concerning legal representation were restored for reconsideration. This move underscores the court's intention to ensure a fair and just examination of who should rightfully represent the deceased in this particular suit.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding legal representation in civil suits, particularly when disputes about marital status and heirs arise. The court's decision to remand for a summary inquiry highlights the importance of carefully delineating the roles of legal representatives without delving into the intricate questions of inheritance. As this matter unfolds, all claims and arguments from both parties remain open for examination, setting the stage for a fair adjudication process.