1 2025:CGHC:54683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 932 of 2024 1 - Kuldeep S/o Prem Kumar, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village-Sasauli, Post-Urdara, Police Station And Tahsil- Lundra, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh. -----(Defendant No.1) 2 - Minor Kameshwar Singh S/o Premkumar, Aged About 16 Years Through Father Premkumar, R/o Village-Sasauli, Post- Urdara, Police Station And Tahsil-Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. -----(Defendant No.2) 3 - Premsai S/o Late Ajar Sai, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village-Sasauli, Post- Urdara, Police Station And Tahsil-Lundra, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh. -----(Defendant No.3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Amaso, Dead Through Lrs- Smt. Anumati W/o Shiv Prasad, Aged About 38 Years, Village-Sasauli, Post Urdara, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ------(Plaintiff) 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ------ (Defendant No.4) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 11.09.2024 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) in Civil Suit No.87/ 2019 2 by which an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC filed by the respondent No.1 on account of death of the plaintiff, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original plaintiff namely Smt. Amaso wife of Kanhai Ram filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and declaration the sale deed dated 24.06.2014 as null and void. He submits that during the pendency of the civil suit, the original plaintiff Amaso passed away and respondent No.1 claiming herself to be the legal representative of deceased/ plaintiff by virtue of a will executed by her, moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC which was allowed by the learned trial Court by the impugned order. He further submits that the proposed legal representative, respondent No.1 was not representing the entire estate of the deceased for the entire suit property, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for respondents support the impugned order and submit that whatever argument has been advanced by Mr. Pandey could be looked into during the course of trial of the civil suit, therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it appears that the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC by relying upon the purported will executed in favour of the respondent No.1 by the deceased/ plaintiff. The will appears to be a registered document. The argument which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners could be looked into by the trial Court during the course of the trial. The impugned order does not appear to be illegal or perverse warranting interference. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.12 10:46:48 +0530