I‘N THE HIGH COURT OF JU‘DICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P.No. g?“ 2004 PETITIONER Jawaharlal Yadav, aged 45 years PROPOSED ?ARTY S/o. Ramdayal Yadav R/o.Vi11. Balangi, Tahsil Vadrafnagar, Distrigt- Sarguja ’ (C.G.) VERSUS Defendants RESPONDENTS :‘ 1. Samaria Wd/o Late Ramdulare Aged 65 Years, Jhagaru S/o Ramdulare Aged 5O Years, Fun-munia D/o Late Ramdulare W/o Bodhe Ahir, aged 40 Years 1 to 3 are R/o Village Balangi, Tahsil Vadrafnagar D1str1ct Sarguja (C G ) Fulmatia D/o Late Ramdulare W/o Ramvnksha R/o V111 Kogwar Tah31l Vadrafnagar, ' Distt. Sarguja (C.G) Ayodhya S/O Jagan (Dled) . State of Chhattlsgarh Through Collector, ' Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) Ramdayal S/o Late\Ramlakhar1, Aed 65 Years, Formal Party - Plaintiffs a I / g M Surajlal S/(E) Late Ramlakhan ged 60 Yegrs, Sumani Wd‘/o Late Rambaran aged 42 years, r. Lukavan S/o Late Rambaran aged 25 years, . Dadhar S/o Late Rambaran aged 15 years . Prahlad S/o Late Rambaran aged 10 years, . ahlu S/o Late Rambaran \ aged 8 years, No. 11 to 13 Minors through natural guadian mother Sumrii, No. 7 to 13 are by caste Ahir, R/ oVillage Balangi, Tahsil Vadrafnagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) ‘ I r w x WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA a P XI—HC-78 HW,W,W H.13..%.J. CW ‘w. mm awm (W) a1 i200 WWW WW§WW* g basmamksr = ?3.§§‘2%%: Mr. D.N. Prajapti ccunse Mr. VAK. Pandey counse! By ihiS petition the peti ‘ order dated 16.12.2003 passec l ; Class Ambikapur wheret piaihtiffs/re3pomdents' ? ta 13 bringing legal repre$eniative3 o v record has been re}ected. Th ' propo3ed LRs 0f decea$edldefe Learned coun3el for the exesu‘aed by the deceasedfd V petiticner is the iega! represen' aiéowed the appHcation of the mgai represen’caiive of Ayodhy wntrary to ‘aw oh th’é face of i1 (1 1) of the Code of Civik Procec perscfw who in law repreSents inclucles any pelson wlm interl and where a‘ party sues or ls pereon on whom the estate clev ‘ sued and thus as per the defin the legal representative of dece On the other hand lean submits that the instant petition for the petitioner. for respondents 1, 2 and 8. :ioner has challenged the legality of the in Civil Suit No. 5-A/1998 by Civil Judge y the appiication preferred by the under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC for ideceasediaefendaht Ayodhya Prasad on instant petition has been tiled by the ndant Ayodhya Prasad. petitioner eubmits that by virtue of a will afendaht Ayodhya Praead the preaent ative and the Court betow ought to have ’ olaintiffa ahd impleaded the petitioner as a Prasad and thue the order impugned ie . He further submits that as per section 2 lure the iegai i'epresentatiVe means that a the e‘etate of a deceased person, and neddles with the estate of the deceased sued in a representative character the elves on the death of the party so suing or ‘tion under section 2 (11) the petitioner is ased Ayodhya Prasad, red counsel for respondents 1, 2 and g is not maintainahie as the petitioweing a @ WW . .49.e.:§.8t.[.m 31 ‘ 200 XI-HC-78 3aW, m,W -.‘_ 2 . mm (W) WWW WWEWWU " ‘ "%31%113TI%¥T the propOSed legal representative: of ‘ihe deceasedfdefendwt has no {acus standi to me 'the present pe€i€ion as the pkaintiff has not pfeferred to chanenge the impugned order by which his appHcation for substitution has been rejected.- Heard. his not disputed €hat the respondentslpiaintiffs’ appiication ‘or eubstituiion-was rejected .by the impugned order and they have not challehged the order paSsed by the Court beiow. Plaintiff is a domimis litis and it is the prerogative of the ptaintiff to substitute the name of the deceased/defendant by bringing their iegat representatives on record and fatiure on his part to do the 5am may be met with the consequence under the law and it is not opet to the legal representatives of the defendant to challenge the order assed in an appticatton preferred by the ptainttff where the eppli attcn for bringing LRs .of the deseased/defendant has been reje:ted. Thus the instant petition which is directed against the order of rejection of the application for bringing the LRs of the deceased/defendant Ayodhya‘Pras ad, is not maintatnable. Sdl- mm)” “‘3‘“ r Judge Accordingty,.the petition is rejected. P.T.O. _ f ‘\