•••-^. i ., 'g5 ^ ^ ^ •^a^f ^? ^ !' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.348 of 201 O APPELLANT: Petitioner Harikishan, S/o Ram Prasad Sahu, aged about 51 years, at present aged about 75 years, R/o Bazar Ward, Baioda Bazar, PS - Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS- 1. 2. 3. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Through the Collector, Raipur (CG) The Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwaiior (now Chhattisgarh, Raipur, CG) Mutehand, S/o Shri Paras Ram, aged about 75 years, R/o Bazar Ward. Baloda Bazar, PS Baloda Bazar, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Ralpur (CG) (since deceased) Present: Shri Bharat Rajput, counse! forthe appeilant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State. DivjsioiLBench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (18-10-2010) 1 The appejiant fjled a wrtt petitlon against the order dated 10-7-1992 of the Board of Revenue after a period of 2 years i.e, on 25-8-1994 Respondent No.3 died on 14-12-1995 during the pendency of the writ petition. However, the appellant djd not take steps to substjtute legal halrs of respondent No.3 for a period of 15 years and application for substitution was moved on 3rd July, 2009 wlthout mentioning ths date '^"'"^^ ^y^ ^ of knowledge of the death of respondent No.3 with a delay of almost 15 years. 2 Learned Single Judge considering the above facts dlsmissed the applicatlon for condonatlon of delay in filing application for substitution as well as applteatlon for substituting (egal halrs of respondent No.3 and consequently, dismissed the writ petition as abated. 3 Shn Bharat Rajput, learned counse! for the appellant submltted that the deiay occasioned as a result of lapses on the part of the counsel for the petjtioner in not moving proper applteation for substitutjon and the appetlant cannot be penalized for the lapses of his counsel and the delay jn moving the above appttcatSon ought to have been condoned. 4. Heard Searned counsel for the appellant and perused the Impugned order. 5. Learned Single Judge, oonsidering the appellant's negljgent conduct in moving application for substitutlon of legal representative wlthout preper exptanation, dismlssed the application with a finding that the same was not bonafide and consequentty dismissed the writ pet'rtion as abated. 6 We flnd no substance In the argument of leamed counsel for the appeliant that delay occasioned oniy on account of lapses on the part of the counsel for the petitioner. 7. The appeal is without any substanee, the same deserves to be and is accordingly ctlsmissed. — Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge