v '? < -^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH SinyIeasoGh CIVIL REVISION N0. ^^^ J20M APPLICANT DEFENDANT ^ RESPONDENTS/ PJLAINTIFFS^7 Sukhiram, Aged about 55 years, S/o. Ghanaram Sahu, R/o. Kumharpara, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund }} ^] ^ /5] VERSUS Kumaribai Aged about 50 years, Wd/o. Kanhaiyalal, R/o. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Ku. Maya, Aged about 27 years, D/o. Kanhaiyalal, R/o. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Manju, Aged about 25 years, W/o. Nandkumar, R/o. Khataili, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Ku. Tikeshwari, Aged about 23 years, D/o. Kanhaiyalal, R/o. Mahasamund, Tahsil & DistrictMahasamund (C.G.) Ku. Toshan, Aged about 20 years, D/o. Kanhaiyalal/R/o. Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) REVISION PETITION U/S. 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^- XI-HC-22 w^r-^i f^ri^-B^T ^RW^f^f ^^.-^TqT^zf, '^TCFT?, IN^ray 3irl^r i?^? _...C^i.....i&^./. ^IW^I^HT^ 209 "fe^ST' ^^T^<fT^T^fN 28.11.2005: Shri Manoj Paranjapej le^al The applicant has dated 14.9.2004 passed MCA No. 19/2002 arisjng oi| Suit No. 80/2001 by the because the legal heirs of were not brought on recor^i purpose was filed by the condonation of delay in filin^ was that the heirs were the original plaintiff. Howevjer trial Court recording a findj failed to prove that they wejr also obser/ed in the orderl died as back as on 2.10.3 deceased/plaintifftill 5.3.20p Learned counsel for| ought notto have Snterfere^ open to the appellate Courtjto the trial Court -untess thet support of this submissior^ Ganaa bai Vs. Viiav Kumdi cf»i^[<vt4l'i *ii<i<yff °?fe^r '^[^K ^3TPW<3^?T 1 cbunsel for the applicant. pr^ferred this revision petition against the order Additional District Judge, IVtahasamund in iijit of the order dated 27.8.2001 passed in CMI trial Court which w?s dismissed as abated ^he deceased/plaintiff who died on 2.10.2000 till 11.3.2001. An application for the same heirs ofthe?plaintiff. The ground raised for the appljcation for bringing the LRs on record not jaware of the pendency of the suit instituted by r, the above application was rejected by the jng that the (egal heire of the original plaintiff re not aware of the pendency of the suit. It is jof the torial Court that the original plaintiff hfad !000 but the counsel continued to represent 1. the. applicant submits that the appellate Court with the finding of the trial Court as it is not interfere with the finding offact recorded by e' are cogent reasons for the same and in he relied upon the decision in the matter of r and others reported in 1974 MPLJ. 629. h" »•--, N. XI-HC-22 h 37T^Tq?T R-ii5b ^l^ ^T:n^"^rfin l[W^ T ^~^T '^TPTT?P?, ^Tf!^rs^, 'f^RT3? -^? •^ISN^l^Rra^ ^ 200' t^^T* -SH^T'^iT^R ^?f^ The fact that the counsel for |the proceedings before the trial Court| contention ofthe legal heirs ofthe pendency pftheabovesuit. Coi*t Thus the finding of the delay in filing the application for brii was sufficient, eannot be faulted. T! cited by the counsel for the appli applicatjon to the present set of ft condonation of delay in bringing liberally and it would be always in on merit. In view of above, 1 do not fi| which requires interference from dismissed. ^j^?Ql^,^l^<riT 4 :fe^t <p?i^S< ^ ^TJ^R 37I^T plaintiff continued to appear in the in spite of his death establishes the JaintifF that they were not aware of the below that the reason assigned for Iging the LRs ofthe plaintiffs on record le facts and circumstances ofthe case t;ant are quite differe.nt and it has no |cts. Even otherwise, in the matter for jLRs on record has to be considered (he interest ofjustice to decide thesuit |id any HlegaKtyinthe impugned order t|iis Court. Accprdingly, the revlsjon is Sd/- . |i_ DH1RENDRA MISHRA Judge j [''^'^ft<^7