Order 22 Rule 5 CPC Inquiry Mandatory in Mahant Succession Disputes: Punjab & Haryana High Court Says Dera Successor Can’t Be Decided Merely on a Will

Case Name: Nachhattar Singh @ Surmukh Dass v. Gian Parkash and Others

Date of Judgment: 15 May 2026

Citation: CR-4060-2022

Bench: Justice Vikram Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where rival claims are raised regarding succession to the office of Mahant and representation of a Dera, the trial Court is duty-bound to conduct an inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC before deciding who should be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Mahant. The Court ruled that a successor to a religious office cannot mechanically be recognized merely on the basis of a Will or power of attorney.

Summary: In an important ruling concerning succession disputes in religious institutions and the scope of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside an order whereby a trial Court had impleaded one Gian Parkash as the legal representative of deceased Mahant Gopal Dass without conducting a proper inquiry.

The dispute arose from a civil suit for permanent injunction relating to Dera property situated in Village Ralla, District Mansa. The original suit had been filed by Mahant Gopal Dass and associated Dera entities against the defendant Nachhattar Singh, alleging interference in possession over the suit property.

The defendant contested the suit by claiming that he had long been associated with the Dera as a Chela and was managing the affairs of the institution. He further asserted that after the death of Mahant Gopal Dass, he was intended to succeed as Mohtmim of the Dera.

During the pendency of proceedings, Mahant Gopal Dass passed away, following which Gian Parkash moved an application seeking impleadment as legal representative. He claimed to be the Chela of the deceased Mahant, relied upon a registered General Power of Attorney and a registered Will allegedly executed in his favour, and further claimed that the Akhada at Haridwar had declared him as Mohtmim of the Dera.

The petitioner opposed the application and asserted that Gian Parkash was neither the legal representative nor the Chela of the deceased Mahant. It was further contended that the petitioner himself had been appointed Mahant by the Bhek after the death of Mahant Gopal Dass.

The High Court examined the scope of Section 2(11) CPC and the scheme of Order 22 CPC relating to substitution of legal representatives. The Court reiterated the settled distinction between a “legal heir” and a “legal representative”, observing that while every legal heir may be a legal representative, every legal representative is not necessarily a legal heir.

The Court also analysed precedents relating to succession of Mahants and management of Deras. Referring to earlier judgments, the Court reiterated that succession to religious offices is ordinarily not hereditary and is generally dependent upon election or recognition by the concerned Bhek or religious body.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal held that once rival claims had been raised by both sides regarding who was entitled to represent the deceased Mahant and the Dera, the trial Court could not have mechanically impleaded Gian Parkash solely on the basis of a Will. The Court observed that Order 22 Rule 5 CPC specifically mandates an inquiry whenever a dispute arises regarding legal representation. Since no such inquiry had been conducted, the impugned order suffered from legal infirmity.

Decision: Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa. The matter was remitted back to the trial Court with directions to decide the application afresh after conducting an inquiry in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC regarding the rightful legal representative of deceased Mahant Gopal Dass.