1 2025:CGHC:20921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 692 of 2017 1 - Deleted (Chandra Shekhar Mourya) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 31/03/2023. Deleted (Hari Narayan Mourya) (Died) Through Lrs. Honble Court Order Dated 31-03-2023 1(a) Smt. Kamla Maurya W/o Late Shri Harinarayan Maurya, Aged About 65 Years R/o Rapta Road, Shiv Mandir, Sanichari Bazar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1(b) Smt. Puja Maurya, W/o Shri Anjani Kumar Maurya, R/o Near Banaras Hindu Vishwavidyalay, Lanka Varanasi, U.P. 1(c) (C) Rahul Maurya, S/o Late Shri Harinarayan Maurya, Aged About 38 Years R/o Rapta Road, Shiv Mandir, Sanichari Bazar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1(d) Himanshu Maurya, S/o Late Shri Harinarayan Maurya, Aged About 37 Years R/o Rapta Road, Shiv Mandir, Sanichari Bazar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - B) Raju Mourya Alias Gajanand Mourya, S/o Late Chandra Sekhar Mourya, Aged About 61 Years R/o Devenandan Nagar, Phase-I Near Shiv Mandir, Bilaspur, C.G. 1.3 - C) Kamal Mourya, S/o Late Chandra Sekhar Mourya, Aged About 57 Years R/oscience College Road, Chantidih, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - D) Shesh Narayan Mourya, Aged About Years, S/o Late Chandra Sekhar Mourya, R/o Rapta Road, Sanichari Bazar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.06.05 15:12:16 +0530 2 1.5 - E) Smt. Mamta Mourya, W/o Dr. Dhirendra Kumar Mourya, Aged About 68 Years R/o Alopibagh, Prayagraj, U.P. 1.6 - F) Smt. Soma Maurya, W/o Late Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 64 Years R/o Teliana, Varanasi, U.P. ... Petitioner(s) versus Shri Sukhdeo Singh Thakur (Dead) Through Lrs. Nil. 1.1 - 1 (A). Sakati Singh S/o Late Shri Sukhdeo Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Guru Vihar Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B). Bhupendra Singh S/o Late Shri Sukhdeo Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Guru Vihar Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (C). Smt. Veena Singh Widow Of Late Sukhdeo Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Guru Vihar Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - (D). Smt. Shardha Singh D/o Late Shri Sukhdev Singh W/o Shri Nikhil Singh, R/o Guru Vihar Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Sundar Singh Through Lrs. S/o Shri Bodhan Singh Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Seepat Chowk Sarkanda Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2.1 - 2 (A) Atul Singh S/o Sunder Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sarkanda Mahamaya Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2.2 - 2 (B). Jyoti Singh D/o Late Sunder Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sarkanda Mahamaya Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2.3 - 2 (C). Arti Singh D/o Late Sunder Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sarkanda Mahamaya Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2. Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07/05/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-1 Bilaspur by which application filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected by the trial Court by recording its finding that application under order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff on 21.09.2016 after 9 months of death of defendant No. 1 Sukhdev Singh who died on 21.11.2015. The trial Court has also recorded its finding that the plaintiff has not filed any application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside abetment as after expiry of limitation of 90 days provided under the statute, the suit so far as defendant No.1 stand abated. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and possession of suit property mainly contending that the land situated at Chantideeh, Bilaspur which has been purchased by the plaintiff on 25.01.1994 from one Sukhmat and has taken possession in the property and has prayed for declaration that he be declared as title holder 4 of the suit property and encroachment done by the defendant be removed by way of injunction. 3. The defendant No.2 filed the written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint contending that they have not done any encroachment of the petitioner’s suit property and no cause of action has been arisen. It has been further contended that the plaintiff has sold the said property to the other person vide sale deed dated 02.06.1973 and has not placed the true and correct fact, as such prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. That during pendecy of the suit before the trial Court defendant No.1 Sukhdeo expired on 21.11.2015 and no intimate was given to the trial Court by defendant No.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved application under Section 151 CPC on 21.09.2016 with a prayer to direct the defendant No. 2 to intimate the name of legal representative of defendant No.1 who expired on 21.11.2015. In reply to that application, defendant No.2 has intimated the name of legal heirs of defendant No.1 on 03.10.2016 thereafter the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC read with section 151 CPC to incorporate the name of legal representative in the cause title and thereafter moved an application on 21.09.2016 for brining the legal representative of defendant No. 1 on record by filing application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 cpc mainly contending that informed the defendant No.2 has informed the plaintiff regarding legal representative of defendant No.1 on 03.10.2016 as such the application has been filed. The same has been rejected by the learned 5 trial Court vide its order dated 07.07.2017 which is challenged in this petition. 5. It has been contended that the impugned order is bad in law and it is within the limitation of 90 days as the plaintiff was not aware about name of legal representative of defendant No.1 and no intimation was not given by survived defendant No.2 to the trial Court. It has been informed to the plaintiff only when plaintiff moved an application on 03.10.2016 and in response to this it has been intimated by the defendant No.1 on 05.10.2016 and within 90 days they have filed the application, as such the trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application on the count of delay and latches, on this legal and factual matrix, he would pray for allowing the petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the learned trial Court has not committed illegality in rejecting the application as no application under Section 151 CPC has or under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside abatement by the plaintiff and would submit that the impugned order of the trial Court is in accordance with the law and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the order sheet annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that though the defendant No.1 expired on 21.11.2015 despite that the defendant No. 1 and 2 were represented by their respective counsel before the trial Court on 21.09.2016, 03.10.2016, 04.10.2016, 06.12.2016, 6 22.12.2016. Even when the application was filed on 03.10.2016 by the plaintiff before the trial Court asking the defendant to inform about the name of legal representative of defendant No.1 on that occasion also the counsel who was representing the defendant No.1 was appearing before the trial Court and no information was given. The record of the case clearly demonstrate that when the name of the legal representatives of defendant No.1 was brought to the notice of the plaintiff on 05.10.2016 he immediately moved application on 16.10.2016 which is within 90 days, as such it cannot be said that the application was barred by the limitation or the suit so far as defendant No.1 stand abated. Thus the trail Court has committed illegality in rejecting the suit under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC vide its order dated 07.07.2017. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will substitute the legal heirs of Sukhdeo Singh thereafter notice will be issued to newly added respondents as mentioned in the application. Considering the fact that the matter is pending since 2017, it is directed that the trial Court shall make an endavour to conclude the trial within outer limit of 1 year and six months from the date of first appearance of the parties on the date fixed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to the cost. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh