IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUB XC.GJ Stt, WRITPETITION f 227V N0. ^/^OF 2009 %. PETITIONERS ^ LEGAL HEIRS OF DEFENDANT BABULAL '^§ts /14^;\£>$> ,..-si,,l'<->s-" ^•y"...'-" ^•'".^ i<^.-- v*»'" RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS Kusum @ Suman Yadav Wife of Late Babulal Yadav, aged about 70 years; 2. Uma Yadav D/o Late Babulal Yadav, aged about 42 years; 1. 2. are residents of Near Bal Mandir, Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Dullo Bai so-called Wife of Late Rammu Rajak, aged about 75 years; Suneeta @ Aneeta so-called D/o Late Rammu Rajak, aged about 35years; Both are residents of Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspui- (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION 01- 1ND1A "^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 5428 of 2009 Petitioners Kusum @ Suman Yadav & Another Versus Dulio Bai & Another WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 227 OF THECONSTiTUTION OF INDIA .K. Aaarwal, J.) Shri RK Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for respondents. >nd Heard on admission. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2009 (Annexure P/1), passed by the First Civil Judge, Ciass II, Bilaspur (CG), whereby and whereunder the application filed by the piaintlff/respondent under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC alongwith application for condonation of deiay has been aliowed and the legal representatives of deceased respondent i.e. petitioners were brought on record and accordingly amendment was also allowed, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. 2. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners wou!d submit that the petitioners have intimated the respondents immediately about the death of defendant and even then the application for substitution of legal representatives has been filed after lapse of 90 days, therefore, the order passed by the triai court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 3. i have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. 4. The trial court, after considering a!l aspects of the matter and also considering the fact that the case was Sransferred from one court to E;; ••>, another in between, condoned the delay and allowed the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the trial court leading to manifest injustice so asto invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exereise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegaiity, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ !arge on the face of the record, which Is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sshu