T^;^?^^^|i^^^ ^^^s^^ ^-*L^ <<-L"L- ^^v.t^'*^^-?TtrW-?h=T^yT WVTi^a-Erty^STV^-'L)<j iu tf-ta~'&~V(^^' INTHEHIGH COURT JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR CWILREVlSDN NQ ^ /2005 Sfll|6|.f BENCH Auplicant /Plaintiff Versus Mon-applicants v ^i1 ^wy ^&y /.^ew /^y /^Jr ./^ / •^'^/ '^ /^^ .1. x^' ^y ^ 4. (2. 5. f^ 6> ^ 7 8.. ^> / Smt.Devki Bai D/o Late Santram Aged about 48years. Caste- Gond, R/o Village-Kota, Tahsil - Kota, Dist : BUaspur-fC.G. Balram Singh Gond, S/o Santram Gond Aged about 43 years Manharan Singh S/o Santram Gond Aged about 41 yfiars F'uran Singh S/o Bhav Singh Gond Aged about 30 years Srut. HiTaruaU W/o Santram Gond Aged about 63 years Smt. MotinBai W/oBhavSingh Aged about 63 years Non applicants 1 to 5 are R/o Village Bacheli Khurd, Tahsil - - Kota, Dist: Bilaspur - (C.G.) Chhedu S/o Kunja Bai Aged about 50 years Lakfaan S/o KunjaBai Aged about 40 years Makhan S/o Late Smt. Kunja Bai Aged about 30 years Non-appUeants 6 fo 8are R/o Village Khurdur, Navapara, TahsU Kota, Dist: Bilaspur-(e:.G.) State .of Chhattisgarh Through—Collector, Bilaspur-(C.Q.) :IU .ij ..-' ii-iiiil t2) MEMO OF CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CODE OF CFv'IL PROCEDURE 1908 -('- • ?a^M<^) (^ft^ ) -:jspun se 0101. ynoo euiajang noo xsay eq; ujsjsqM ssj. ssseo •SA sjaqio pue nijBs iitej>,i ujey sq 8L|t Aq pSJSpUSJ UO;Si39p 84} Aq pej; 002) "! psyoQ^^sjsq^o P"e oes-OBt{pjBqoQ tljB OBg IQefi EUBsi U! ynoo xsdy jo.t uoueoj[dde ue BU^BUJ u| Ae|Sp ou SBA ej&q} ieq} pgsi, pue SJA |B3fu], }SJ|j sui 'ieg e[un>j-9'ON luspuods^ ou peij pu° s}U8uis|ie jsy+o pue fcse^ Ap8| pioij-ssnoy e SB/A tuejiedde eyil uo ssAiteiuesejdej [eBsj su} BujSuuq jepun uoiieojidde ue ijtjM BUOJE ^ 9i.t Aq ps|y s8 uoaeoiidde uy •| 9'ojM yjspuodsej 'gesdde SIL|} p Aou^ (FOOZAr-09"ON iesddp jjAjo) lesddy {s|i 'IJ-S95|0 SSpnp jiAjQ ^t> Aq l.OOS-W-Zfl lOOS/V-se'ON t!"S !|A!O p jessgLUs|p| eoeis aq; }B A'spo} A|jeuy ,o pesodsip }U"oj|dde-uou;'©iet9 341 -•'OJ JSAMBI •,|Bij8q jisqi uo jssunoo A^ ussq &AE4 As^} qBnoyi ueAe 'iussqe ^ •}ue3;jdde ey- jo, [ssunoo AOO Aisjsnbs si jsaeiu su s Ide p njsujsieqe SL(I spjse Sussss >44 suopuoo o} punoiB }usj3jyns .<os} Ajsjnd @ >j00} }jnoo e}B!ieddv ;^j p qt"sp 8Lj* inoqe eSps|/i''ou;( ;ipsip yesq luoj, cuusyns SSM pus |ieyi uisjeq} psys^s SSM ij 'pjooej \i0, pV UOg(Bi|lUi-[ ®4},Q g-u0jps9 tOOS-60-60 uo y!?U!B[d-}Ui2j,sdde WZ'S.O-OS uo PS!P IB8 Bil;r'>i )pusd eui Suuna ' i.OOS-90-OS uo ;|iy psjjs^sjd yi+uiejd-iUBjjSddE sq} psiep esjosp pus }usiuSpnf epjA uodn tBijt eje spe, ,sys •UOjSStLUpBp iuisq si uoiSiAsy |!A|O siq. 'S'ON |suecj 'jBMejBv il4W !JMS t paiy. uasq 554 JSMOQ' pu~e psAjes \m 8 0} i.'ON 5.ueoj|ddB-uoN bsujesi 'indfes ZOOS-ZO-ZG Ifc^ltphiytpt^ •>l?^iy> |J>.S) (iphlh I.U»l.lJh.]it> ua]»>teii»ai^iw> uajftifcihiB U^UEifeIk^ lifej^lte s:I>y <^OOZ 'l'^ / ttolhtB IMhlh /°i3 -w ^ ^ tblshl^lte vRftlWb] '°>l>rt[p.i»'h.Wlh.lh- te£ ZZ-3H-IX XI-HC-22 an^T^T R-(i+311^1 ditfi+'yRd 3^ -^wwi, vn^ww, ^wvy. 3li^i Macb HWWI sh*<i«h""""""""""yw;[ 2005"' f^g W\^l «<IIW^f?(T 2_ "TI-. '. ne exorsssio.n "si Section 5 of the Limte or any other similar construction so as to negiiaence or snaction or| party. !n a particular eas; constitute sufficient cau^ of that ca.se. There cd accepting or rejectinf caused in takina steps. v/ith the tendency of fiRi| relect the petition bv a| disposal drive. Acceptan^ the ruie and refusai, negiigsnce or inaction or| to the defauiting par the rnatter the Courts sh| not taking steps within th| accrued to th®other partl by condoning deiay in takina a osdantic and h1 explanation furnished high and/' or arguabie poi case, causing enormous aoainst whom the !is and defeating va'uable decision on merits. Whii<{ to strike a bafance hetw) going to pass upo" the p^ In MithaiSaI Dalsangar tatidn Act, 1 Kini and Gthers reported in (20$ wss heid by the Apex Court as urfder:- " The Courts have to ado|' by the uppermost consider^t to b6 denied an opportunit)); unless he has, by gros^ 'hK;^^^ K|t|i-fl'fffe'<fl <R|«K ^si'f^trsn^r .|fflcient cause" v/ithin the meaning of Act, 1963 or Order 22 Ruie 9 CPC srovision shouid receivs a iiberal ^dvance substantiai justice when no want of bono fldes Is imputable to a whether explanation furnlshed wouid ^e" or not wiil be dependent upon facts inot be a straitjacket formula ?or ^xpJanation fumished for the delay Howevsr, Courts should not proceed lUin.g fault with ths cause shown and slioshod order in over-iubiiation of <;e of exD.lanatlon furnished shouid be ^nd exception, more so when no want of bona fides can be imputeted the other hand, whiie considering |ou!d not iose sight of ihe fact that by '^ time prescribed s. valuable riaht has V which should not be lightiy defeated |a routine-like manner. Howsver, by 1,'Der-technica! view of the matter the {suid not be rejected when stakes are hts offacts and law are involved in the foss and irreparable injury' to fhe party tninates, either by default or inaction right Qf such a party to have the considering the matter, Couns have feen resultant effects of the order it is ferties either wav." shftuici tertninates, >thers 'oai Devrsin [) 10 Supreme Court Cases-891, it it a justice-oriented approach dictated tion that ordinarily a ijtigant ought not / of having a iis determined on merits negiigence, deiiberate inaction or i^sysy L....13 XI-HC-22 an^r^r 'TI f^iNisn^T 'f^. ^T<b1yf?cf f- j> ^ w pr 3:^''<<i<iici<<,®Tfl<ri<o,|si<iiuy ^TtCh H11MI Sh*<|cn 3TT^?T .^.'.p.-...'^.0-..'?.6/— w.T.-:..."..y.^ 200 5~ Rl'b.A something akln to rniscond|uct,'dis'entitied himssif from seeking the induigence ofthe Court.l Considering the principles facts and clrcumstances of the casls the Appeiiats Court gross'y erred rejecting the appiication filed by tf' Rule-4 of C.P.C. and under S^ appei'ant-plaintiff being a hous^ serious ai'ments could not be e>|; respondent No.S-Kunja Bai and brng the iegal representatives on| libera! approach ought to havs bs^ justice. In this view of the matter, tS1 dated 13-01-2005 passsd by the \\ Silaspur in Civil Appea! No.SO-Ai]: under Order-22 Ruie-4 of C.P.C. *nc Act ars aHowed. The appsii^ reprssentatives of deceased resps^nd T'ne Appel!ate Couri: sha!!, .aftar gt parties, expeditiously dispose of t^ COSi.S. id down bv the Apex Court and the ;, ! s.m of the considered opinion that |n taking a purely technicsi view'and tfie appel!ant-p!aintiff under Orc'er-22 (ction-5 of the Limitation Act. Ths i^-hold !ady suffering from various !>|oected to know aboiit the death of to taks immediat®promot action to record. in this view of fhe matter, a tn taken so as to advance substantia! 'DI'M^'fl-l HIICll ^'telA'<R]«K ^ari^Tsn^T iis Civi! Revision is aliowed. An order 'IIitnAdditiona! Distrid: Judge (F.T.C.), 2004 is set-aside. The appiications ind uncer Section-5 of the Limitat'on An >nt-p!aintiff shait brin ndent No.6-Srnt. Kunia Bai on record. tfing an opportunity of hearing to th< ie appea! thereafter. No ordsr as to Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge (tf^y^)