1 CGHC010193322023 2026:CGHC:38147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 98 of 2023 Dhimrin Bai Widow Of Samedas Satnami (Since Dead) Through Legal Representative Adopted Son Namely Ratan Chandel S/o Late Sukul Chandel, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Padumtara, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Radha Bai Widow Of Shri Durga Prasad Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Gond Pendri, Police Station Utai, Tahsil And District Patan (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Ankita Goswami and Mr. Viplav Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Adv. For Respondent No.2/ State : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging Order dated 03.02.2020 passed by Upper District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.58A/2018, whereby applications filed by the appellant/proposed legal representative (LR) of deceased sole appellant Dhimrin Bai, under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, have been rejected. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP DN: cn=BINI PRADEEP, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Dhimrin Bai (since deceased), who was mother of present appellant, had filed Civil Suit No.28-A/2011 seeking declaration of her title and permanent injunction against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in respect of suit land mentioned in the aforesaid civil suit. That civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court, which was challenged by Dhimrin Bai (sole plaintiff) by filing First Appeal No.58A/2018. During the pendency of the first appeal, the sole plaintiff Dhimrin Bai died on 22.4.2019. Since she was the sole plaintiff, the present appellant, being her son, filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, on 07.01.2020. However, the said applications were dismissed by the Upper District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon, vide the impugned order dated 03.02.2020, on the ground that the appeal filed by the sole appellant, Dhimrin Bai, had abated under Order 22 Rule 3(2) of the CPC, as no application for substitution had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It was further observed that the application for substitution was filed after expiry of the prescribed period and without accompanying application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement. Accordingly, the learned Upper District Judge rejected the applications filed by the appellant/proposed LR of deceased Dhimrin Bai. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the proposed LR, namely, Ratan Chandel, is an illiterate person and was neither aware of the pendency of the appeal nor conversant with the law and its procedures. Therefore, he could not file the application for substitution along with an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC. It is further submitted that even his counsel did not advise him to file an application 3 for setting aside the abatement. The appellant wants to contest the matter on its merits. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 may be set aside, and the matter may be remitted to the concerned appellate Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the proposed LR of deceased Dhimrin Bai to file an appropriate application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and thereafter decide the same on its merits. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, who is the main contesting party, supports the impugned order passed by the learned first appellate Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is settled proposition of law that the Courts ought to have decided the case on merits and not on technical ground so that the parties can get justice. It is also settled law that if there is no malafide intention in filing belated application, then delay ought to have condoned taking a liberal view. 6. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] has observed that the sufficient cause has to be construed liberally especially when the delay is not deliberate and mala fide. Paras 11 & 12 of the said decision are as under: “11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the 4 redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitation newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari {AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749)." 7. In the instant case, the sole appellant, Dhimrin Bai, is stated to have died on 22.04.2019. It is the contention of the appellant that he was not aware of the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 07.01.2020, i.e., after about eight months from the date of death of Dhimrin Bai. The learned first appellate Court rejected the aforesaid applications on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that no application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement had been filed within the 5 prescribed period. Therefore, it was held that the appeal had abated. 8. Even after the death of Dhimrin Bai, the appeal was not dismissed as having abated, rather, it remained pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the proposed LR of deceased Dhimrin Bai, namely, Ratan Chandel, filed the aforesaid applications. The proposed LR ought to have filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement. However, the consequence of not filing such an application cannot be fastened solely upon the appellant, particularly when he is stated to be an illiterate villager and was not conversant with the law and its procedural requirements. In such circumstances, the counsel representing the appellant also had a duty to advise him regarding the necessary and appropriate applications, including an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the observations made hereinabove, it is apparent that the appellant/proposed LR is willing to contest the matter on its merits. Owing to his ignorance regarding the pendency of the appeal and the relevant legal procedure, he could not file the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC along with an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC within the prescribed period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant/proposed LR. Rather, the delay in filing the aforesaid applications appears to be bona fide. 10. However, the learned first appellate Court, without properly considering the aforesaid circumstances in the light of the settled principles of law, adopted a rather strict and technical approach and rejected the applications filed by the appellant/proposed LR of the deceased sole 6 appellant outright. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned first appellate Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to the appellant/proposed LR to file an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC and thereafter considered the same on its merits by taking a liberal view. Hence, impugned order dated 03.02.2022 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court,this Court is inclined to allow the instant appeal. Consequently, impugned order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Upper District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.58/18 (Dhimrin Bai vs. Smt. Radha Bai & Anr,) is set aside. 12. It is directed that Civil Appeal No.58A/2018 be restored in its original number upon filing Certified Copy of this order by the LRs of late Dhimrin Bai i.e. Ratan Chandel S/o late Sukul Chandel. Thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant/proposed LR of deceased Dhimrin Bai, the learned Appellate Court shall consider and decide afresh the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC, which shall be filed by the appellant/proposed LR within 15 days from the date of restoration of aforesaid appeal. 13. Both the parties are also directed to remain present before the trial Court on 21.09.2026. 14. This misc. appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini