HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGAFW AT B1LASPUR Defendants Sinflle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Ditip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. MisceHaneous Appeai No.23/2008 Shiv Gopal Gupta, aged about 68 years, S/o late Kashi Prasad Gupta, R/o Ward No.18, Near Civil Court, Manendragarh, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Smt. Gujaratiya, aged about 61 years, W/o Shri Shiv Gopai Gupta, R/o Ward No.18, Near Civil Court, Manendragarh, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Durga Shankar Gupta, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Shiv Gopal Gupta, Occupation Service, Resident of Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.) Rajendra Pa! Gupta, aged about 35 years, Si'o Shri Shiv Gopal Gupta, Occupation Advocacy, R/o Ward No.18, Near Civil Court, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Respondents 3. 3. 5. Smt. Shakuntala Gupta, Wd/o Late Rampal Gupta, aged about 50 years, Vishnushankar Gupta, S/o late Rarnpal Gupta, aged about 34 years, Tulsishankar Gupta, S/o late Rampal Gupta, aged about 32 years, Nirbhayashankar Gupta, S/o late Rampal Gupta, aged about 24 years, Ramshankar Gupta, S/o late Rampal Gupta, aged about 22 years, Aii R/o Ward No.17, Near Jain Mandir, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) Smt. Vidyottama Gupta, W/o Shri Ramlakhan, aged about 26 years, R/o Vill-Raipur Naikin, District (M.P.) under Order 43 Rule 1 (Ki of C.P.C. reaardina abatement of suit. Present : Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel for the appeliants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th March, 2008) 6. Heard'on admission. (2) Impugnedorder dated 16-01-2008 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Manendragarh in Civii Suit No.6-A/2006 is perused. (3) On 09-11-2005, an application for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff was allowed as not opposed by the defendants. However, order dated 09-11-2005 could not be complied with. An appiication was filed stating that due to bonafide mistake order dated 09-11-2005 could not be complied with and the iega! representatives ofthe deceased-plaintiff wanted to continue the suit and it was prayed that permissson be granted for substitution of lega! representatives of the deceased-plaintiff as per order dated 09-11-2005. This prayer was a!lowed by the impugned order. (4) No illegality or manifest error of law is seen in the impugned order whereby pursuant to an order dated 09-11-2005, the Court enlarged the time for substitution of the !egal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff. (5) In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. IA.No.1 , an application for stay also stands disposed of. (6) Before parting with this appeal, it would be appropriate to observe that instead of directing the Cierk of Court to incorporate the amendment, the iearned 2 Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Manendragarh ought to have directed the counsel for the applicant/plaintiff to c!o so.i Sd/- Dmp Raosalieb Deshmukh Judge Tumane