^ Amended Cause Title IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (U/Art. 227) No. 3085 /2009 PETITIONERS APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Non-applicants 1] Anil Shrivastava S/o. Late Hmday Narayan Shrivastava, Aged 40 years. 2] Sunil Shrivastava S/o. Late Hmday Narayan Shrivastava, Aged 36 years. All above R/o. North Ring Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 3] Narayan Das, Aged about 45 years, S/o. Late Shri Dilbodh Panika, R/o. Near Pratappur Barrier, Fundur Dihari, Nagar & Tah. Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (CG) 2] Vijaynath Dubey S/o. Late Shivdhari Dubey 3] Ramharsh Dubey S/o. Late Shivdhari Dubey 4] Ramanuj Dubey, S/o. Late Shivdhari Dubey 5] Nagendranath Dubey S/o. Late Tirathnath Dubey / ^ C{ 6] Dhirendranath Dubey, S/o. Late Tirathnath Dubey 7] Alok Dubey, S/o. Late Tirathnath Dubey All above R/o. Near Pratappur, Barrier Fundur Dihari, Nagar & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 8] Smt. Geeta Dubey, W/o. Late Ravindranath Dubey, 9] Abhishek Dubey S/o. Late Ravindranath Dubey, 10] Naveen Dubey, S/o. Late Ravindranath Dubey, All above R/o. Brahmanpara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 11] Sudisht Narayan Pathak, S/o. Late Rajdev Pathak R/o. Near Pratappur Barrier Fundurdihari, Nagar & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PBTITIONBRS RESPONDENTS W.P. (227) No. 3085/2009 Anil Shrivastava and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate, for petitioners Shri Sunil Tripathi, Adv. for respondents No. 2 to 11. Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (2-2-2011) 1. Heard. 2. Legality and propriety of the order impugned dated 23-4- 2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh is under assail in the instant petition. 3. Facts giving rise to this petition in nutshell are that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are sons of late Hraday Narayan Shrivastava. The Petitioner No. 3 is son of late Dilbodh. Hraday Narayan Shrivastava and Ramlakhan Pandey had filed revision against the order dated 11-4-2007 passed by the Additional Collector in revenue case No. 21-A/2003- 04. During pendency of that revision, one application was filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. read with Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code for substitution of legal representative of deceased Dilbodh in his place on the ground that Dilbodh has already died on 4-8-2004 but the applicants came to know this fact only on 22-10-2007. The above application has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order impugned on the ground that it is time barred as well as the legal representatives of Dilbodh are not necessary party. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. ,^ 4.'^ On the date of passing of the order by the Additional Collector i.e. on 11-4-2007, Dilbodh was not alive who died on 4-8-2004, meaning thereby, the above order passed in appeal by the Additional Collector was in fact in favour of a dead person. The proper course available to the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was to file revision arraying the legal representative of deceased Dilbodh as party with an application for permission to add them as party in the revision. According to the petitioners, they came to know the fact of death of Dilbodh only on 22-10- 2007. Since the death took place prior to passing of the order by the Additional Collector and prior to filing of revision before the Board of Revenue, therefore, the provisions contained in Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. have no application in the instant case and the petitioners' remedy was to file application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for adding legal representative of deceased Dilbodh as a party to the revision in his place. However, mentioning ofwrong provision would not debar the court to grant appropriate relief and the revisional court should have treated the , application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. as under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and should have decided the matter accordingly. The revisional court did not notice the above aspect of the matter and treating the above application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. dismissed the same as time barred. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the Board of Revenue to treat the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. read with Section 32 of Land Revenue Code as filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and decide the same in accordance with law. It is expected of the Board of^Revenue to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge 4M