1 2025:CGHC:15863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 650 of 2019 1 - Shanti Bai Yadav D/o Late Gajadhar Yadav Aged About 56 Years Through Power Of Attorney Holder Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, R/o Village Pod, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Present Address Village Bhendri Up Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bharat Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu, R/o Village Pod, Tahsil Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kartik Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu, R/o Village Pod, Tahsil Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Umesh Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu, R/o Village Pod, Tahsil Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jeevan Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu, R/o Village Pod, Tahsil Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondents/ : Mr. K.K. Pandey, Advocate Defendants No.3, 4 & 5 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.04.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 01.07.2019 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.20/2019, whereby the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. A civil suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and possession and to declare the will deed null and void. The Civil Suit No.16A/2017 was filed on 23.01.2018. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was moved to substitute legal representatives of defendant No.1. 3. Learned Trial Court observed that defendant No.1 was no more when the civil suit was filed and the plaintiff should have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading his legal representatives. 4. The petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal against the said order that was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2019 and against that order, this petition has been preferred. 5. Mr. Kuldeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would argue that the learned Appellate Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for impleading the legal representatives of defendant No.1. He would pray to set aside the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) 6. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kuldeep. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 3 perused the documents placed on the record. 8. The Court below has granted the liberty to the petitioner to move an application according to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to substitute the legal representatives and the petitioner may also move an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC before the learned Trial Court for the substitution of legal representatives of defendant No. 1, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for the substitution of the legal representatives of defendant No.1, if already not substituted. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha