1 2026:CGHC:24512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 654 of 2026 Gorelal Kohli S/o Late Konda, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Vidyadih (Tangar), Tahsil Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Krishna Kumar S/o Shobhnath Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Vidyadih (Tangar), Tahsil Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Aatish Singh S/o Gorelal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Vidyadih (Tangar), Tahsil Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Ramaini Bai W/o Late Koda Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Vidyadih (Tangar), Tahsil Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Harbai D/o Late Koda Aged About 47 Years R/o Villag Dhangawa Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Resham S/o Late Koda Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Milouni, Tahsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Shivcharan S/o Firat Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Vidyadih (Tangar), Tahsil Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Ramcharan S/o Firat Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Vidyadih (Tangar), Tahsil Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Dilip Kumar Sahu S/o Ramnath Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Town Korba (C.G.) 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.25 19:52:17 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No.9/State : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 17/06/2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by learned 5th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Junior Division, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/78/2024, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) and Section 5 of Limitation Act has been partly allowed and permitted to substitute the names of legal representatives of the deceased/defendant No.3 on the record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court. The present respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, who is prosecuting a civil suit for declaration of title and possession and also for permanent injunction with respect to the land khasra No. 453/1, 313/3 and 588/2, area 0.283 hectare, 0.121 hectare and 0.162 hectare respectively, situated at village Vidyadeeh (Tangar), Tehsil Pachpedi, District Bilaspur. It is the pleading made by the plaintiff in the plaint that, on 25.04.1986, when the plaintiff was minor, his father had purchased the land of khasra No. 75 and 453/1, area 0.42 acre and 0.70 acre in the name of the plaintiff from the father of the defendants No. 1, 4 and 5. There is no dispute with respect to land of khasra No. 75. Both the land of khasra No. 75 and 453/1 is recorded in the revenue records in the 3 name of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that although the land of khasra No. 453/1, area 0.70 acre is shown to be sold in the name of plaintiff, but in fact the possession of the land of khasra No. 313/3, area 0.121 hectare and khasra No. 588/2, area 0.162 hectare was given to him, in which he is in possession since the date of its purchase. After death of the father of the defendants No.1 and 2 namely Konda, when they approached to concerned Patwari for mutation of their names in place of their father, they came to know about the sale transaction by their father to the plaintiff and the defendants No.6 and 7. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants No. 6 and 7 get the land of khasra No. 453/1 mutated in his name without notice to the plaintiff and subsequently sold it to defendant No.8 on 02.06.2018 and thus the dispute arose between the parties and the suit has been filed. He would further submit that during pendency of the suit, the defendant No.3 Ramaini Bai has died on 15.07.2024, and then the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and another application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for substitution of names of legal representatives of the deceased/defendant No.3 and also for condonation of delay. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay was allowed and the delay in filing the substitution application is condoned and the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC is partly allowed and permitted the plaintiff to substitute the names of proposed legal representatives 3(a) Lalit, (b) Narayan, and (d) Smt. Asha Bai vide its order dated 02.04.2026. He would also submit that the proposed legal representatives Lalit, Narayan and Smt. Asha Bai are not the legal heirs of the deceased Ramaini Bai and therefore, 4 their names cannot be substituted in her place of the deceased/ defendant No.3. They have no nexus with the suit property. Smt. Asha Bai is claiming to be the daughter of late Mohan Lal (son of Ramaini Bai), but Mohan Lal has died issueless and she is not the legal heirs of Ramaini Bai, therefore, their substitution in place of deceased/defendant No.3 Ramaini Bai is bad in law. Despite raising objection, the application filed by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned trial Court, therefore the impugned order may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the proposed legal representatives of the deceased/defendant No.3 Ramaini Bai are in fact not the legal heirs and therefore, their names cannot be substituted in her place. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the basis that proposed legal representatives are not the legal heirs of the deceased/defendant No.3. Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC provided the procedure in case of death of one or several defendants in the suit. It provided for substitution of the legal representative(s) of the deceased/defendant. It is necessary to notice here the provision of Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, which reads as under:- “Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC:- Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.— 5 (1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendants to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. (4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place. (5) Where— (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, 6 make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefore in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had, by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application with the period specified in the said Act, the Court shall, in considering the application under the said section 5, have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved. 5. There is difference in legal representatives and legal heirs of the person concerned. The legal representatives has been defined in Section 2(11) of the CPC, whereas legal heirs has been defined under Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is also necessary here to quote both these provisions, which reads as under:- “Section 2(11) of the CPC:- “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person 7 on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued; Section 3(f) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:- “heir” means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act;” 6. In the case of "Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique" (1989) Supp (2) SCC 275 : AIR 1989 SC 1589, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the expression "legal representative" is not confined to legal heirs and extends to all persons who represent the estate of the deceased. In para 4, it has been held that:- “4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the learned Judicial Commissioner committed serious error of law in setting aside the order of the trial Judge. "Legal representative" as defined in Civil Procedure Code which was admittedly applicable to the proceedings in the suit, means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The definition is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only instead it stipulates a person who may or may not be heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased but he should represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as 8 persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". If there are many heirs, those in possession bona fide, without there being any fraud or collusion, are also entitled to represent the estate of the deceased. In the instant case it is not disputed that under the Portugees Law of Inheritance which was applicable to Goa at the relevant time Mrs. Nalini Bai had acquired "Meeira rights" according to which she had acquired half share in the estate left by the deceased Vinaique Naique and the remaining half share was inherited by sons and daughters of the deceased who were subsequently brought on record. On the admitted facts Mrs. Nalini Bai therefore represented the estate of the deceased Vinaique Naique. Once the name of Mrs. Nalini Bai was brought on record within time and the application for setting aside abatement was allowed by the trial Judge, the suit could proceed on merits and the mere fact that the remaining legal representatives were brought on record at a subsequent stage could not render the suit defective. The Custodian of the appellant Bank had no knowl- edge that there were other legal representatives of deceased defendant along with Mrs. Nalini Bai. He had filed affidavit that on making diligent and bona fide inquiry, he had come to know that Nalini Bai was the sole legal representative but later on he acquired knowledge that the deceased had left four sons and two daughters as legal representatives, along with Mrs. Nalini Bai, therefore, he made another application for 9 bringing them on record. The trial Judge accepted the testimony of the Custodian, and placing reliance on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mannem Venkataramaih v. M. Munnemma & Ors., AIR 1963 A.P. 406 he allowed the substitution application. The trial court committed no error in law, instead he applied correct principles of law.” 7. Likewise, in “Andhra Bank Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan” AIR 1962 SC 232, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even a person representing a part of the estate may qualify as a legal representative under Section 2(11) CPC. 8. A comparative reading of both these provisions would clearly show that for substitution of the names of a person, who legally represents the estate of the deceased, he may not be necessarily the legal heirs of the deceased. The definition of the legal representatives shown in Section 2(11) is quite clear that, a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, whereas the legal heirs shown in the definition of Section 3(f) should have entitled to succeed the property of an interested under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the entitlement of succession has been provided in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the property of a male and Section 15 of the Act of 1956, if the property of a female. 9. 9. The substituted defendants may or may not be succeeded the property under the Act of 1956, but substitution of their names on the record is only for the purposes to represent the estate of the deceased as provided under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner on which the present writ petition 10 has been filed does not appealing to this Court for exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition, the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved