1 CGHC010147462023 2026:CGHC:30286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 262 of 2023 K. Janaki Rao (Dead) Through Lrs. K. Neelamma W/o K. Tbityya, Aged About 80 Years, R/o M I G-1-1066, Amdi Nagar, Ward No. 57 Hudco, Bhilai West, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1 - Tirath Ram (Dead) Throiugh Lrs. Nil. 1.1 - Madhav S/o Tirath Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ruwabandha, Near Talab, Ruwabandha Basti, Near Bhaiskhatal, Thethwar Para, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.] 1.2 - Santosh S/o Tirath Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ruwabandha, Near Talab, Ruwabandha Basti, Near Bhaiskhatal, Thethwar Para, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Through Collector, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For applicant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sandhya Rao, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 16-7-2026 1. Applicant has preferred this MCC under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code 2 of Civil Procedure for setting aside abatement order dated 13-12-2012 of first appeal No. 715/1999 (K. Janki Rai Vs. Tirathram and anr.). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Civil Suit No. 20A/99 (K. Janki Rao Vs. Tirath Ram) for specific performance of contract was dismissed by the District Judge, Durg vide order dated 13-12-1999. That order was challenged by K. Jankirao by filing First Appeal No. 715/99. During pendency of first appeal, sole appellant K. Jankirao died on 29-3-2005 and after his death, his father also died 7-5-2005. The first appeal was dismissed as abated vide order dated 13-12- 2012. Since K. Janki Rao died on 29-3-2005 and after his death, his father also died on 7-5-2007, therefore, his mother K. Neelamma filed instant MCC under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside abatement order dated 13-12-2012 in First Appeal No. 715/99. Along with the MCC, I.A. No. 1/2023 application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC to permit her to be substituted in place of K. Janki Rao, and I.A. No. 3/2023 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing the MCC, have also been filed on 1-5-2023. She also filed an application I.A. No. 2/2023 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC for substitution of LRs of respondent No. 1 Tirath Ram who died in the year 2010. 3. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that during the pendency of instant MCC, K. Neelamma has also died on 22-7-2023 (wrongly mentioned as 22-7-2003 in I.A. No. 5/2025), therefore, her sole son K.G. Rao (K. Ganpati Rao) filed I.A. No. 5/2025 under order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, I.A. No. 6/2025 under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and I.A. No. 7/2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to 3 condone the delay in filing the aforesaid application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that, after dismissal of first appeal on 13-12-2012, application under Order 22 Rule 9 was filed on 1-5-2023 by K. Neelamma, who also died on 22-7-2023, thereafter her son K. Ganpati Rao has filed instant applications I.A. No. 5/2025, I.A. No. 6/2025 and I.A. No. 7/2025 after about more than 10 years, but delay is bonafide. Hence, he prays that, delay may be condoned and order of abatement may be set aside and K. Ganpati Rao may be permitted to be impleaded as applicant in the MCC. 5. Learned State counsel submits that State is a formal party in the case. 6. Perusal of record shows that, the first appeal filed by original appellant K. Janki Rao was dismissed as abated on 13-12-2012. Thereafter, K. Neelamma claiming to be his mother filed application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC on 1-5-2023 i.e. after more than 11 years. Subsequently, K. Neelamma also died on 22-7-2023, but applications I.A. NO. 5/2025, I.A. No. 6/2025 and I.A. No. 7/2025 have been filed by her son K. Ganpati Rao on 27-10-2025 i.e. after more than 2 years from the date of death of K. Neelamma. All aforesaid facts show that not only restoration application, but also the substitution applications have been filed after huge delay of years and no sufficient cause has been shown to condone such huge delay, firstly, for more than 11 years from date of death of J. Janki Rao and secondly, more than 2 years, from the date of death of K. Neelamma. The civil suit was disposed of vide judgment dated 13-12-1999. Thus more than 26 years have passed since then. In such a long period of time, nature of 4 property may also have changed. Therefore, having considered aforesaid facts and long delay, this Court is not inclined to condone such huge delay. Hence I.A. No. 3/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the MCC for setting aside abatement and I.A. No. 7/2025 for condoning the delay in filing substitution application, are dismissed. 7. Consequently, instant MCC is also dismissed and all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.21 10:30:43 +0530