^•^•^•\j\j:'^'\j~^\S<^-^'-^J"u-'^^'^-ue^J:J''^r^-^-u- "^.^y.—»^; nsT THE mOH COURT OF JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR CivUReviswnN^)^of20f)3 SingleBench df^ ^ y- ^SARDAR <jURVAGHAN SENGH, SON OF LATE RAWAIL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/0 STATION ROAD, HAIPUR. -^ AMARJEET SINGH CHABRA, SON OF SHRI PAYRELAL | CHABRA, ^GEDABOU]Ti42YEARS, RESIDENT RAIPUR. PANDRI, VERSUS PETITIONER/ [DEFENDANT]: ^^ 'vf^'" RESPONDENT [PLAINTIFF] ^'^'*7' REVISION PEJTmON UNDER SECUON 115 QF COIlNOF CrVILPROCEDURE.t908 is "^' mGH COURT OF CHHATNSGARH ATBILASPUR CivU Revision No. 237 OF 2003 Sardar Gurrachaa Sin^h Vs. Amarjeet Sin^i Chabra <\ & ) "V Post for pronouncement of order on \ t> /12/2009. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge € ^ i ! ; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 237 OF 2003 APPLICA3?IT RESPOHDBNT Sardar Gurvachan Singh Versias Amarjeet Singh Chabra \A?T SINGLE BENCH:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT :- Shri B,R Sharma with Shri Kshitij Sharma^ Advocates, for applicant- Shri G.R. Miri with Shri Ratan Pusti, Advocates for the non- applicant^ ORDER ( |D -12-2009) Per N.K. Aearswal, J 1. Heard. 2. By way of this order, the application filed by the applicant for bringiag legal heirs of fhe deceased on record is being disposed of. 3. Brief facts of tiie case are as under: - 4. Indisputably, the applicant Sardar Qurvachan Singh died on 5th August, 2004 at Raipur. The revision was filed by the deceased Gurvachan Singh on 8-7-2003 agaiiist the money decree passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2003. The application for bringing legal representatives of the deceased applicant on record has been preferred by the applicaat on 4-11- 2009 i.e. after more than 5 years from the date of death, that too, without filing any application for condonation of delay. 5. According to the leamed coiinsel for the applicant, the provisions contatned in Order 22 of C.P.C. are inapplicable so far as the revision is concerned and further according to him, the present applicants have acquired fhe knowledge of fhis matter when tiie matter € v <. ^»»^^^^^.^^ there is any delay, it is umntentional and bonafide. Per contra, leamed counsel for the non-appUcant would submit that although fhe provisions contained in Order 22 of C.P<C. are in tenns inappUcable in case of revision, but Article 137 of the Liaiitation Act squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of fhe present case, under which the appUcation for bringbig legal representatives of the deceased applicant has to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of death, else, tlie said application would be time baired. He would further submit that fhe fact of death of Sardar Gurvachan Sm^ti is weU within the knowledge bf tiie appUeantswfao are in occupation of the suit premises being heirs of fhe original i tenant deceased Gurvachan Singh and are aGtivety contesttr^ all other matters pn his belialf after j .' -• his deafh. Furfher fhe applicants are represented by the same coynsel in aU the matters and, therefore, it cannot be said tjhat the fact of death of GiiTLivadian Singh is not in their knowledge or fhey are not aware about pendency of the ihstant revision. By placing reliance upon fhe judgment of the Division Bench ofMadhya Pradesh High Court in case of Smt. Saveeda Beeank and another -v- Ashraf Hussain aiid otSaers reported in AIR 1980 M.P. 12 and decision of FuU Bench of AUahabad High Court in case ofChandradeo Paadev and others -v- Sukhdeo Rai aad others reported in AIR 1972 All 504, it is submitted that the applicationought to have been filed within a period of 3 years. Siace fhe iastant application has been preferred after a lapse of more than 5 yeors, that too, without assigning any reason for its belated filing, the revision deseryes to be dismissed. Reliance has ^lso toeen placed upon fhe judgment of Siipreme Court in case of Itotari Surranaravana and others -v- KoDolsetti Subba and others reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4640 and it has been submitted that wifhout .^ € c ^ w showing suf&cient cause, huge delay caused in brin^ng legal heirs of fhe deceased applicant on record, should not be condoned. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Indisputably, tihe application for bringing legal representatives of fhe deceased applicant on record has been filed after a lapse of more than 5 years, that too, wifhout asslgniag any SuflGicient cause therefor. Moreover, fhe said appUcation has been filed wifhout filing any application for condoning fhe delay. The applicant's counsel could not substantiate that ftle fact of death of fhe deceased applicant was not wifhln the knowledge of the legal representatives of the deceased applicant. An attempt has been made by the appeUant counsel by saying that non-appUcant recently intimated the co^irt about death of applicant, so fhe application prefented by the applicant for substitution offheir name in pla^e of deceased applicant is not time barred. This court did not lind any substance in it. It is not a case of death bf non-appUcant for which intimation given by the non-applicant's counsel may be fhe relevant eonsid^ration for condoning fhe delay. Here in fhe instant case, the applicant himself died and appUcants are legal representatives ofdeceased applicant and by no stretch of imagmation it can be said that fhey are not aware about his death, ftierefore, the contention raised is sans- substance. 9. The only question remaias for determination is whether or not, fhe application preferred by the applicant can be said to be time barred as the same has not been preferred within a period of 3 years as preseribed under residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 since admittedly fhe Order 22 of C.P.C. is in tenns inapplicable in fhe instant matter. 10. ..-.^' 11. ., \t; « 'l v^). The FuU Bench ofAUahabad gh Court in fhe matter of Chaadradeo Pandev (supra) has held that (he application for substitution oflegal heirs in a revision is an application under Section 151 of C.P. C. and hence fhe period of limitation for bringing legal representatives of the deceased applicant in revision 1s 3 years under Article 137 of the Liinitation Act. The Division Bench of M.P. High Court also has taken the same view in the case of Smt. Saveeda BesGam (supra). The same view has been taken by fhe Kolkata High Court m fhe case of SIiankar De Bhattachai'wa -v- Jvotivmovee Devi and others reported in AIR 1998 CAL 55. It is trite law tfaat even thougti Order 22 of C.P.C. is not appUcable, a litigant must come within a reasonable time. By applying the ratio of aforesaid judgments, to which I am in respectful agreement, tn ftie facts and circumstances of the present case, it is ciystal clear fhat the proposed legal representatives of fhe deceased applicant have failed to|assign any sufficient cause for not ffling fhe application for substitution within a reasonable time, within tljie period of three years as prescribed under Article 1^7 offheLimitationAct. In view pf the above, in the considered opinion of fhis Court, ttie application filed by fhe applicants is badty time baired, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and consequenfly, fhe revision also staads dismissed. Pathak Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge