1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1285 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pratima Tandon D/o Madhavdas Tandon Aged About 34 Years W/o Nemichand Morisa, R/o Near Mauli Mandir Tilda, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lata Tandon W/o Late Madhav Das Tandon Aged About 50 Years Resident Miri-Tola Purur, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Appellant) 2 - Jaswinder Singh (Died) S/o Madhav Das Tandon 2.1 - (A) Smt. Kajal Tandon W/o Late Jaswinder Singh Tandon R/o Bablu Traders, Vill.- Mirritola, P.O. Ghirod, Tah.- Gurur, Dist- Balod (C.G.) 2.2 - (B) Kumari Leela Tandon D/o Late Jaswinder Singh Tandon Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Kajal Tandon, W/o Late Jaswinder Singh Tandon, R/o Bablu Traders, Vill.- Mirritola, P.O. Ghirod, Tah.- Gurur, Dist- Balod (C.G.) 2.3 - (C) Kumari Rishika Tandon D/o Late Jaswinder Singh Tandon Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Kajal Tandon, W/o Late Jaswinder Singh Tandon, R/o Bablu Traders, Vill.- Mirritola, P.O. Ghirod, Tah.- Gurur, Dist- Balod (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Karuna D/o Madhav Das Tandon Aged About 34 Years W/o Bhupendra Bandhi, R/o Jodhapur Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Quarter No. R-32 G-Type, Civil Lines Pathalgaon, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Priyanka W/o Bhimsen Banjare R/o Borsi Bhata, Ward No. 50, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Ashok Kumar Munjwani S/o Late Kiratmal Sindhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Gol-Baazar, Near Motor Stand Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 6 - Prakash Chand Chimnani S/o Shri Hikamal Sindhi Aged About 54 Years R/o Amaltas Puram Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 17:23:17 +0530 2 7 - Hiranand Panjwani S/o Late Gopimal Sindhi Aged About 57 Years R/o Amaltas Puram Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 8 - Naresh Samnani S/o Shri Trilokchand Samnani Aged About 44 Years R/o Baniyapara Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 9 - Surendra Prakash Munjwani S/o Shri Ramesh Lal Munjwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Dhamtari, Tahsil/ District Dhamtari (C.G.) 10 - Mohit Chimnani S/o Shri Prakash Chand Chimnani Aged About 25 Years R/o Mahant Ghasidas, Ward Dhamtari, Tah. And Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) 11 - Ramesh Panjwani S/o Late Shri Bhurumal Panchwani Aged About 54 Years R/o Rishaipara South Ward Dhamtari, Tah. And Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) 12 - Pratik Munjwani S/o Shri Ashok Munjwani Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Gol-Baazar, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 13 - Vishal Munjwani S/o Shri Ashok Munjwani Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Gol-Baazar, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 14 - Ruchir Panjwani S/o Hiranand Panjwani Aged About 31 Years R/o Amaltaspuram Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 15 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State / Respondent No. 15 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/12/2025 Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10/2023 by the Principal District Judge, Dhamtari, CG by which the respondent No. 1 who has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for deceleration, injunction and possession in respect to the suit 3 property described in the plaint. He submits that the suit was filed against many defendants including one Madhavdas Tandan as defendant No. 1. He submits that the petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC which was allowed by the before the learned Second Civil Judge Class-II, Dhamtari, CG along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed by the petitioner/plaintiff which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge on 10.10.2023. Against which, the defendant No. 1 Madhavdas Tandan has filed a Misc. Appeal before the Principal District Judge, Dhamtari, CG. During the pendency of the Misc. Appeal, the appellant Madhavdas Tandan died and an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was filed by his alleged wife Smt. Lata Tandan. That application was allowed by the impugned order, therefore, this writ petition is filed. He further submits that Smt. Lata Tandan had already moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the learned Civil Judge to array as a defendant but the said application was already rejected. Therefore, once the application is rejected by the learned trial Court she could not be substituted in place of petitioner. Apart from this, he submits that the application is filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC whereas it should have been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The first contention of Mr. Verma is that the application has been filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC whereas it should have been filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. Order 22 Rule 3 CPC clearly speaks that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and one of the more plaintiff and the right to survives can move the application for substitution. Admittedly, the deceased Madhavdas Tandan was defendant therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. Even otherwise, if the provisions has wrongly been contained the relief as to 4 be seen by the Court. Second contention is that the application of Smt. Lata Tandan under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected in the Civil Suit. Both the provisions on different footing, the Smt. Lata Tandan is substituted on record as a legal representatives of the deceased defendant. Therefore, this contention is also rejected. 6. In light of above, the learned District Judge has also considered the application it is proper prospective and allowed the same and this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan