^ •d^- HI©HCOURT OF CHHMTISGARH. BtL/^PUR Civil Revision No. 174/2003 Single Ben|ch : Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh v Applicants Defendants to6. No.4 Noii-aoDticants ^ 1. Manishraj Singhania, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri RajKamal Singhania. 2. Rishiraj Singhania, aged about 24 yearis, S/o Shri Raj KamalSinghania. 3. Rohit Kumar Singhania, aged ab©ut 23 years, S/o Shri Lalit Kumar Singhanta. All r/o Hoyse no.15/481. 0pp. Daga Buildings, Civit Lines, Raipur, Tahsit & District- Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 195$, Regionat OfyiGe, llnd Floor, above Vijay Bank, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.<3.) fPlaintiffl 2. Smt Shirio, aged 52 years, Wd/o Late Shri Santosh Kumar Dubey, r/o 6-Ctoongaji Cotony, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Smt Dhan. aged 51 yeare, W/o Dr. Ratan R. DarQga, rlo 414, Prasana Park, Behinct Meera Seciety, Shanker Sheth Road, Poona (M^ 4. Miss. Feroza, aged 45 years, d/o Late Shri Nawshirwan Doongaji, 4/4 Prasana PaFk. Behind Meera Sociefy, Shanker Sheth Road, Poona (M.S.) 5. Smt. Anahita, aged 40 years, w/o Dr. Pruyashap Sanjana, r/o 4/7 Prasana Park, Behind Meera Society, Shanker Sheth Road, Poona(M.S.) (No.2 to 5 L.RS. of Dfd. No.1) 6. Khudadad Kama, aged 72 years, S/o Rustamji Kan'ia, r/o 91. Goolistan, 34, Bhujabhai Desai Rd. Mumbai-400026. i35S^ No.2) 7. Sarsethji, ^ged about 64 years, S/o IVUnochar IVIowdawala, r/o Spenta Apartment, Rot No.0-8 B.G.Kher Matbar Hitl. Mumbai-400 006 (DM. No.3) '^•'?\ M il.l;!!:.' 'i ^:' ^^w.^ii^ Ai! / ^., ^ ^- Pre^ent: Shri A.K.Prasa^, Counsel for the applteants. Noone appeare for non-applicant No.14?laintits. Noone appear^ for non-appticants N6.2,6 and 71 Nori-appUcantfjJo.3,4 and 5 are served. for non-appticants No.2,6 and 7tti€>yghserved ORALORDER (Passed on 23KlMareh, 2007) Heard on admjssion. 2. The nori-applieant no.l/plaintiff-Hmdustan Petroteure Corporation Limitecl fited a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreerpent dated 31.12.1962 against one Navirehirwan and 5 other defendants. Notices were issued to the defendants. The report of the process server divu^ed that Nav^hirwan-Defendant No.1 expired on 6.4.99 i.e.pFiorto the date of institution of suiton 3.8.2000. The non-applteant No.l/ptajntiff ffled anapplicatjon uncter Order 22 Rute 4 and 9 ofC.P.C. for bringingthe legal representatjves of Nawshifwan-defendant No.1 on record atong with an application under SecttonS ofthe Limitatjon Act on ttte groundthat ftie plaintiff had knovrtedge of the death ofdefendant N6.1 Nawshirwan when the report of ttie proGess server was receiv^l and Nawshirwan being a formal party, the gppeal dld notabate. 3. l^arned 4 AdditionalDtstrlctJud9e,Raipurallowe<l^^^ under Order 22 Rute 4 of fhe C.P.C. for iOTinging the Legal Representetives of defendant No.1 on record. 4. tt is wetl s^ttted that no suit would lie agajnst a dead pereon. tn the facte and circumstences of the case, upon knowledge ofthe fadum of death of defendant No.l-NaWshlrwan a formal party having taken place priortothedateofsuit.theFemedyavailabletotheplairrilfFwasyRder^^s dause (2) of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The plaintiff ought to have made an application for deletion of the name of defendant no.1 from the array of e defendante andto hTipteadtheLegalRepresentalavesasclefenctarite.Be that as it may|, ihe appHcation flled t^ the Non-applicant No.l^lainW ^i'-'-'- ; . ^:". .' ;1.^'-':'' 1:;/';-' ':: -"••:•''•' •':i :^\;-.;'"'^.^:':.;.;:;..:.'^^^^^^ under Order 22 Rute 4 and 9 of the C.P.C. in ttie faete and Girournstances ofthe case, cari be construed to be one filed under Orderl Rule 10sub- !&Nriil!l: l;H'.;::!; ^- Glayse<2)C.P.C|.OF€teredaGCordtngly.Withtheab^dir^^ Revision stends ^isp^^dl of. 5. ft4.(C).P ls|o|204&S006 which is an appNcatiori fer vacating stay land IA.No3727?200tifbr dispensingv^ attendaiw^ applicantsalso^tanddtsposedof. SdA Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge \^< » -% '...y l--i!"-