i!ii “5 Smf. Phool Bai, D/o Late An‘rram Jaiswal, aged about 48 year‘s, R/o Village—Padampur', Tahsil-Mungeli, DistricT-Bilaspur‘ (C.G.) 5. Smf. Suruchi Bai, D/o Lafe Anfr'am Jaiswal, aged abou’r 56 years, Agriculturis’r, R/o Village- Manjhgawa, Tahsil-Kofa, Distric‘r-g Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondenfs/Defendanfs 6. r” Radheshyam, S/o Kosiram 60nd, aged abouf 5O years, R/o Nawagaon Salka, Tahsil—Kofa, Disfricf—Bilaspur (6.6.) 7. /$Ta‘re of ChhaffiSgarh, fhrough the Collector, Bilaspur (6.6.) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C5,) w. P. (227) No. $93“ of 2011 PETmONER/ Rambahomn, S/o Karfikr‘am Sahu, Respondent no. 1/ aged about 60 years, Agriculturist, Defendan’r R/o Nawagaon Salka, Tahsil-Kofa, Distric’r—Biiaspur (6.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ :1./ Shyamfanafh, S/o Lafe Am‘ram Appeilam‘s/Applicanfs Jaiswal, aged about 52 years, 2. / Gopina’rh, 5/0 Late An’rram Jaiswal, \ aged abouf 5O year's, ’\: 3/ Badr'ina‘rh, S/o LaTe An’rram Jaiswal, aged about 45 yars, (L9 m Respondem‘s no. 1 To 3 are @{w Agriculfurisf, R/o Viilage Nawagaon. %. igéy Salka, Tahsil-Ko’ra, District—Bilaspvur' (6.6.) § . @ I Responden’rs/Applicants /, 8. Pushpendm, S/o Ramji, aged abouf 32 years, R/o Rafanpur, Tahsil—Kom, Dis’rrict-Bilaspur‘ (C.G.) 9. Sanghrita, 5/0 Ramji, aged about 28 years, R/o Ghughari, Tahsil-Mungeli, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Adifya, 5/0 Ramji, aged abom‘ ‘26 years, R/o Jharsuguda, Tahsil & District-Jharsuguda (Orissa) 10. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS 2 Shyamtanath & others LVLIRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUT!ON OF INDM1 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panal Lawyer for the State. ‘ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07.07.2011) Heard on admission. During pendency of suit, plaintift Antram died on 08.12.2008. , Thereafter on 17.09.2009, legal representatives of late Antram moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3/9 read with Section 151 of CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act inter alia on the ground that they were not aware about the case pending in the coutt and when they received information they filed the suit and the delay occurred is unintentional and bonatide. The trial court rejected the said application preferred by the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Antram. Thereafter they preferred an appeal before the IXth Addl. District Judge (FTC), ' Bllaspur. The appellate court vide order impugned allowed the appeai by placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of v I E 4 HIGH COURT OF CH HATTlsGARHvAT BILASPUR. Writ Petition (227) No. 3594 of 2011 PETITIONER : Rambahoran VERSUS 3. Due to unawareness about the pendencylof the litigation some delay has occurred in filing substitution application by the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Antram which was bonaticle and' ' 4. in view ofabove, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order warranting interference of this f 5. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supewisoryjurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. should refrain itself from interfering with the order ~ ‘ passed by the Court below, except in such cases where ' perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present CaSe. Sahu /- 2 g$ Ramnath Sao Q Ramnath Sahu & others v. Gowardhan Sao & others1, wherein it has been held “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done. - unintentional. court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- N.K. Agrawa‘ Judge i 2002 (3) scc igs ‘ .