1 2026:CGHC:25943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 532 of 2023 1 - Smt. Yashoda Devi W/o Chait Ram Karsh Aged About 52 Years Caste Dhobi, Occupation Agriculturist And House Wife, R/o Village Naya Baradwar, Up Tahsil Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Now Dist. Sakti ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - (A) Bhawani Lal Bareth S/o Late Vijay Kumar Bareth Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Muktaraja, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 1.1 - (B) Jitendra Bareth S/o Late Vijay Kumar Bareth Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Muktaraja, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 1.2 - (C) Meena Devi W/o Late Vijay Kumar Bareth Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Muktaraja, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (All The Present Respondents/proposed Defendants Are Legal Heirs Of Original Defendant No. 1 Vijay Kumar (Since Deceased) 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohan Shukla, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 24/06/2026 Perused the pleadings of the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto. 2. The present writ petition assails the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2019, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking substitution of the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1, Vijay Kumar Agrawal, came to be rejected. 3. A perusal of the order-sheets annexed with the petition (Annexure P/1) reveals that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction, which has remained pending since 06.09.2010. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1, Vijay Kumar Agrawal, expired. An oral intimation regarding his demise was furnished by his counsel before the trial Court on 04.08.2021. Thereafter, on 11.08.2021, the plaintiff promptly moved an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC 3 seeking substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. However, by the impugned order dated 28.10.2021, the learned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that it was not accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. From the record, it is evident that the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the death of defendant No.1 only on 04.08.2021, and within a week thereof, i.e. on 11.08.2021, the application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was filed. The order-sheet dated 04.08.2021, however, does not disclose the actual date of death of defendant No.1. The learned trial Court proceeded on the premise that, in view of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased defendant on record is required to be filed within 90 days from the date of death and, therefore, in the absence of an accompanying application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application was not maintainable. 5. The aforesaid approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, is unsustainable. In the absence of any material on record indicating the actual date of death of defendant No.1, it could not have been conclusively held that the application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was barred by limitation or that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was mandatorily required. The trial Court ought to have first ascertained the relevant facts before recording such a conclusion. 4 6. Be that as it may, the ends of justice would be served if the palintiff is affording an opportunity to file appropriate application before the tria court as may be required in law for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 is set aside. The plaintiff is granted liberty to file an appropriate application, if so advised, before the learned trial Court for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1, together with any ancillary application that may be required under law. Upon such application being filed, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on their own merits, and without being influenced by the observations contained in the order dated 28.10.2021. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the interim order granted earlier vide order dated 06.07.2023 stands vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.06.29 10:58:30 +0530