1 2025:CGHC:41068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 48 of 2020 1 - Ghasiyaram S/o Moharsai Aged About 64 Years Fulmati (Since Died) Through Lr's Ghasiyaram S/o Moharsai, Resident Of Village Basnajhar, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Yadram S/o Pilaram Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Village Basnajhar, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2020, application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.08.22 11:40:23 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that original appellant – Fulmati, who was wife of appellant has died and the counsel before the First Appellate Court did not transpose the appellant, who was respondent in the Civil Appeal No.37/2017, therefore, Civil Appeal was dismissed as abated. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is a villager and an old aged person. He could not contact his counsel, therefore, delay occurred in filing the instant appeal. He further submits that delay occurred is bonafide, therefore, delay of 636 days in filing instant appeal may be condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent raised objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. On due consideration and for the reason mentioned in the application, delay of 636 days in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. 5. This appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether dismissing Civil Appeal No.37/2017 by the First Appellate Court without transposing respondent No.2/Ghasiyaram/appellant herein is perverse and illegal ?” 6. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ghasiyaram who was respondent No.2/defendant No.2 in the Civil Appeal 3 No.37/2017 is son of original appellant – Fulmati, therefore, after her death, defendant No.2/Ghasiyaram/appellant herein ought to have been transposed as successor of Fulmati. He further submits that even if he could not have been transposed, despite that the First Appellate Court ought to have decided the case/Civil Appeal on merit, but dismissing Civil Appeal as abated is completely perverse and illegal, hence, he prays that the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 may be set-aside and First Appellate Court may be directed to restore the Civil Appeal No. 37/2017 in its original number. 8. Counsel for the respondent No.1 raised objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that State is a formal party in this case. 10. Learned First Appellate Court i.e. 2nd Additional District Judge, Raigarh has dismissed the Civil Appeal No.37/2017 (Fumati vs. Yadram & others), on the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that sole appellant Fulmati has died and there is no successor, whereas, defendant No.2/Ghasiyaram is successor i.e. son of late Fulmati, as such he ought to have been impleaded by transposing him from defendant/respondent to LRs of original appellant – Fulmati, but because of wrong submission made by counsel for deceased/appellant, Civil Appeal No.37/2017 has been dismissed by First Appellate Court vide impugned order 4 which is perverse and illegal. Accordingly, question of law is answered in affirmative form i.e. in favour of the appellant herein. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.37/2017 (Fulmati (dead) vs. Yadram & others) is set-aside. Learned First Appellate Court is directed to restore the aforesaid Civil Appeal in its original number and after granting proper opportunity of hearing to Ghasiyaram (appellant herein) for transposition from respondent to LRs of deceased appellant – Fulmati in Civil Appeal No.37/2017, the Civil Appeal may be considered and decided in accordance with law. 12. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi