TD Q; (O L, i é? IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) WRTT PETITION (227) NO. '5'\‘5%> OF 2010 PETITIONER.................... '. ............. :/ Santosh Kumar Soni Age About 3R PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT 56 years S/o Shri Nohar Prasad, Occupation — Agn'cuturist, Cast - Swamkar, R/o Vill.— Devkar, Tah. — Bemetara, District — Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT ........................ Madhukar Prasad Soni (Died) DEFENDANT/ APPELLANTS Through Lrs. /l. Jagannath Soni Age about 53 Years S/o Madhukar Prasad Soni, Occupation — Teacher, R/o Barai Para, Durg Distt. — Durg (C.G.) Jagdish Prasad Soni Age about 50 Years S/o Madhukar Prasad Soni, Occupation — Service, R/o Risali Sector, Quarter No. — 267, Post — Bhilai, Distt. — Durg (C.G.) /3. Bhagvat Prasad Soni Age about 38 Years S/o Madhukar Prasad Soni, Occupation — Painter, R/o Subnash Nagar Durg, At present resident of behind Radhekrishna Temple, Tirupati Lodge Bilaspur (C.G.) Shivkumar Soni Age about 39 Years S/o Madhukar Prasad Soni, Occupation — Tailor, R/o vi11.- Barela, Tah.- Takhatpur, Distt.— Bilaspur (C.G.) Ashwani Kumar Age about 34 Years S/o Madhukar Prasad Soni, R/o Saja, Tah. — Saja Distt.- Durg Smt. Shakuntala age about 49 years W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Soni, Occupation — House Wife, R/o Vill.- Nayapara Rajim, Tah. — Rajim, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Mayadevi age about 41 years W/o Shri Shyamsharad Soni, Occupation — House Wife, R/o S.E.C.L. Gevra Project, Post — Gevera, Distt. — Korba (C.G.) Smt. Trivani Soni age about 31 years W/o Shri Geetram Soni, Occupation — House Wife, R/o 9. RESPONDENT ........................ DEFENDENT V” Smt. Satbai W/o Shri Lakhanlal, Occupation — Agicuturist, R/o Vi11.- Chuikhadan Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State Of Chhattisgarh Through— Collector, Durg (C.G) Post- 10. Vi11.— Dheertukul, Navagaon Tah. e Dhamtari, Distt. — Dhamtari(C.G.) 6% WRIT PETITION UNDER URTICALE 227 OF THE C_Q§STITUTION OF INDIA . irgg “A r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ Sinqle Bench: Hon"ble Shri Justice Préshant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.3188 of 2010 Santosh Kumar Son i Petitioner versus Madhukar Prasad Soni (Dead) through L.Rs. and others Respondents Present: Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 0. Writ Petition under Artieie 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th September, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order passed by th‘e Court beiow on 22—2-2010 (Annexure P—7) allowing the application of ‘ respondents No.1 to 8 under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth ‘the Code’) to implead the names of respondents No.1 to 8 as appellants in the first appeal pending before the Court below. 3. The first appeal preferred by one Madhukar Prasad Soni was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bemetara. After his death, his legal heirs/respondents No.1 to 8 moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code, which was allowed *f""” on 3-3-2000, however, the cause—title could not be corrected. The ’i/appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17—8—2000 and the J prayer for restoration under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code was rejected on 9—4-2003. Challenging the said order, Miscellaneous Appeal No.550/2003 was preferred by respondents No.1 to 8 in this Court, which was allowed on 18—6—2009 (Annexure P-4). The said respondents thereafter moved the subject application for correction Of the cause-title, which has been allowed by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order could not have been passed by the appellate Court because no such direction was issued by the High Court while deciding Miscellaneous Appeal No.550/2003. 5. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconCeived. Neither such direction was prayed for nor was necessary to be given in Miscellaneous Appeal No.550/2003. Prayer for impleadment of legal heirs was already allowed by the appellate Court on 3-3—2000. Names of respondents No.1 to 8 are already mentioned in the cause-title of Miscellaneous Appeal No.550/2003 decided by this Court. 6. The instant writ petition, being devoid of any substance, is dismissed. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Sd/- Gopal