1 2026:CGHC:2055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 788 of 2017 1 - Deleted (Laxminarayan Pandey) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 15/09/2023 1(A) Smt. Geeta Pandey, W/o Late Sanjay Pandey Aged About 28 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Kusmusi, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 1(B) Astha Pandey, D/o Late Sanjay Pandey Aged About 16 Years R/o Village Kusmusi, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sharda Prasad Pandey S/o Late Kedar Ram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kusmusi, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deleted (Sanjay) Honble Court Order Dated 15/09/2023. 4 - Dilraj, Wd/o Kedar Ram, Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Kusmusi, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 – The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vedant Sadangi, Panel Lawyer {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 5/2024, an application for intervenor/ impleading as 2 one of the party respondent has been filed by Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate appearing for proposed intervenor Gram Panchayat -Kusmushi. 2. Since none appeared on behalf of the proposed intervenior Gram Panchayat – Kusmushi, therefore, the same {I.A. No. 05/2024} is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class -1, Surajpur, District Surajpur in M.J.C. No. 09/2011 whereby, an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity “CPC”) was allowed and the legal representative of deceased - Meera Devi was directed to be substituted on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that disputed property in this writ petition is comprised in peace of Khasra No. 1845/1, area 21 acres situated at Village Khusmushi, District Surajpur. Initially, this writ petition was filed by original petitioners/plaintiffs namely, Laxmi Narayan Pandey, Sharda Prasad Pandey, Sanjay and Dilraj. During pendency of this writ petition, original petitioner No. 1 Laxmi Narayan Pandey and petitioner No.3 Sanjay passed away. Legal representative of original petitioner No. 1 - Laxmi Narayan Pandey were substituted on record, whereas, name of petitioner No. 3 Sanjay was deleted. He further submits that a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of above stated suit property was instituted by Late Laxmi Narayan Pandey, Sharda Prasad Pandey, Meera Devi and Dilraj Kunwar against the then State of Madhya Pradesh and others before Civil Judge, Class-1, Surajpur, District Surajpur, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 69A/ 1995. The original respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh proceeded ex-parte in this civil suit and the learned Civil Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 23.07.1997, granted a decree of declaration 3 title in favour of plaintiffs and the respondents or any other person or employee are restrained to interfere in the suit property. As the defendants/ State of Madhya Pradesh was proceeded ex-parte in that civil suit, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC before the learned Civil Judge which was registered as M.J.C. No. 08/1997. The said MJC came to be dismissed, as no representation was made on behalf of the applicant therein vide order dated 13.10.1998. Instead of taking recourse to restoration of the said application, the respondent/State filed another application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree before the learned Civil Judge, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 09/2011 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the said application. Though, the subsequent application so filed was not maintainable, however, during pendency of the said application, one of the respondent namely- Meera Devi passed away in the year 11.09.2009. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed by the respondents -State to substitute legal heirs of deceased Meera Devi vide Annexre P-8. The said application was rejected by learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 09.11.2012 holding that the neither the application was filed within the stipulated period nor the application for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement were filed alongwith said application. Though, the learned Civil Judge observed that the application against the deceased Meera Devi is abated, however, it is not abated against the rests of the respondents therein. This order has attained finality, as it has not been assailed by the respondent/State. To utter surprise, the application, which has already been rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 09.11.2012, was subsequently allowed by the impugned order dated 20.07.2017. He submits that once the application for 4 substitution of legal heirs of deceased – Meera Devi has already been rejected way back in the year 2012, subsequently allowing the said application in the year 2017 is not sustainable in law, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside / quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while objecting the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner would submit that application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC pending before the concerned learned civil Judge still to be considered on merit therefore, no prejudice is caused if the impugned order is allowed to this extent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the facts, which has been projected herein above, it is quite vivid that a civil suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit proper by the plaintiff, which have already been mentioned hereinabove. It appears that an ex-parte decree was passed granting the above decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of petitioners / plaintiffs therein. It also appears that State of Madhya Pradesh as it then was, moved an application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree, which was dismissed for want of prosecution 13.10.1998 and after reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh, a subsequent application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the State of Chhattisgarh for the same relief i.e. for setting aside the ex-parte judgment & decree dated 23.07.1997. Document appended with the writ petition clearly demonstrate that an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed to substitute the legal representative of deceased Meera Devi, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 09.11.2012 (Annexure P/-9). It appears that the same application is again allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide 5 impugned order dated 20.07.2017. In the fitness of things, the learned Civil Judge ought to have considered that earlier also the said application was also dismissed and it is not brought to the notice of this Court that the order dated 09.11.2012 dismissing the application under Section 151 of CPC was assailed or set aside by the higher Court. Thus, once a decision has been taken by the learned civil Judge rejecting the said application denying the respondent/State to substitute legal representative of deceased Meera Devi and holding that the application is abated so far as deceased Meera Devi is concerned, the subsequent allowing the same application cannot be sustained in scrutiny of this Court and thus in light of the above, the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 is hereby set-aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. As there is an interim order of stay of the further proceeding in M.J.C. No. 9/2011, the interim order is vacated and learned Civil Judge is directed to conclude the proceeding and passed the order in accordance with law expeditiously. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.19 17:36:18 +0530