Chattisgarh High Court
Salma Begam And Ors vs Mehrunnisha And Ors on 3 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No. 162 of 2012
Salma Begam And Ors. Versus Mehrunnisha And Ors.
03.12.2021 Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Surfraj Khan, counsel for respondent No. 4.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he has filed I.A. No. 3 under Order 22 Rule 5 and 9 of the CPC for setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 contending that appellant No. 1 Salma Begam expired on 03.11.2014, respondent No. 1 Mehrunnisha died on 07.02.2020 and respondent No. 5 Jahida Begam died some time in year 2020, but inadvertently he received this information late, therefore, he has filed application bringing legal heirs of the appellant No. 1 and would submit that the delay is bonafide, therefore, prayed for setting aside the abatement of appeal. On due consideration, application under Order 22 Rule 5 and 9 of the CPC is allowed. The abatement of appeal against appellant No. 1, respondents No. 1 and 5 is set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellants have filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC for substituting legal heirs of appellant No. 1 namely Md. Ziyauddin, Md. Riyazuddin, Md. Sirajuddin, Nasim Fatima, Samim Fatima and Nayim Fatima contending that being legal representatives of the appellant No.1 they have right to sue the appeal therefore they may be arrayed as appellants.
Counsel for respondent No. 4 objected that they are not legal representatives of appellant No. 1 therefore the application may be dismissed.
Since there is no legal representatives available, therefore, this Court have no option but to allow the application for bringing legal heirs of the appellant No.1. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 is allowed. The appellants are directed to incorporate name of the proposed legal heirs of the appellant No. 1 on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants have filed I.A. No. 2 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC for deleting the name of deceased respondents No. 1 and 5 Mehrunnisha and Jahida Begam from the array of the cause title contending that respondent No. 1 died on 07.02.2020 and respondent No. 5 Jahida Bega died some time in year 2020. Since legal representatives of respondent No. 1, respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and legal representatives of respondent No. 5, respondents No. 6 and 7 are already on record, therefore, there is no impediment in deleting the name of respondents No. 1 and 5 from the cause title.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 is allowed. The appellants are directed to delete the name of respondents No. 1 and 5 from the array of causetitle. The Appellants are directed to file the amended caustitle along with memo of appeal within a week.
The notice issued to respondent No. 6 received unserved, therefore, fresh notice be issued to respondent No.6 only.
List this case in the month of March for final disposal in motion hearing list.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Deshmukh