-a^&a^.^^.A^,^^,.,.^^^.^^^^ t ^p. Iv: ^-^-I L- £>^c?i?" ^^'l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE A^CHHATTISGARH FIRST APPEAL N0. OF 2005®>^g -^gsi APPELLANS: pDefendants) ^ 1. Smt. Prakash Kaur, widow of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 60 years. 2. Amarjeet Singh, son of Late f Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 30 years. No.2 85 3 are the legal heirs of No.l, resident of Dutta S.T.D, Near Panda Mandir , Raipur. 3. Smt. Rajinder Kaur @ Pinky, daughter of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 36 years, wife of Sardar Jaginder Singh Khanuja @ Joginder Singh, resident of 220,Samta Colony, Raipur, permanent resident of Near Bust Stand, Sihawa, Dhamtari. 4. Smt. Rajis Kaur @ Jassi, aged about 31 years, wife of Sardar Arvind Singh 8& daughter of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, resident of Goodluck Boutique, MIG 141, Near Bharat Mata Higher Secondary School, Housing Board Colony, Tatibandh, Raipur. 5. Jasbir Kaur, aged about 28 years, wife of Sardar Gurjet Singh @ Bitto, daughter of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, resident of Gurudev Travels, G.E. Road, B.M.Y. Charoda, ^ ^ ^' ^^ /RESPONDENTS .i^' [Pl^intiffs) \^'" vs District residing Boutique, Durg, at MIG presently Goodluck 141, Near Bharat Mata Higher Secondary School, Housing Board Colony, Tatibandh, Raipur. 6. Satnam Singh, Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of Station Road, Raipur. (not shown inadvertently in the judgment although added in lower court) All legal heirs of deceased defendant Sardar Gurvachan Singh. 1. Smt. Gulab Bai Agarwal, aged about 60 years, widow of Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, resident of Station Road, Lodhipara, Raipur. 2. Madanlal Agarwal, aged about 48 years, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, resident of -Ejlls^Stand, Charoda_Durg. 3. Goyerdhan Das Agarwal, aged ^ about 45 years, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, resident of Lodhipara, Raipur. 4. Purshottani Das, aged about 35 years, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal. 5. Tansukh Das, aged about 30 years, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal. ,(t6. Mansu>h Das Ag^p^al, agjed /' ^-^ g. f abo<it 30 ye«fs, son oj>/Late ".y ^ '^ ^ ^\( ^' ^'. ^ ^" •^ ^ Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, resident of Station Road, Raipur. Shymalal Agarwal & Mohanlal Agarwal since dead are represented through their legal heirs as above. Civil suit valued at Rs.24,400/- Court fee affixed Rs2,555/- This appeal valued ^t Rs 24,400/- Court fee affixed Rs.2,555/- ^' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 a -J$ !^ ^ ^ &J3: ^ ^,^ i^F ^•^' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. N0. 4- PURSHOTTAM B4S_^^RWAL UmeshKumar Agarwal, son ofLate Purshottam Das 1, aged about 29 years. ^^eTabtu^T^- wife of shri Narayan l^t^e^T8"- wife of shri Gopal A8arwal> ^ s^° Renu Bai A§arwa1' ^fe of Shri Neelabh Agarwal, aged about 27 years. -—— -s^. .vcu, I[uma!,i Anjalla Agarwal- aged about 17 years, minor ^Tol^ne^Jnend umesh Kumar-' Ag^al;"S/"o Purshottam Das Agarwal. - -—"&——, N0^2.to.5.,are daughters of Late Purshottam Das Agarwal.\A11 the legal heirs are resident~o7c7^Moh^ ^r°^a^ Agarwa1' LodhiPara^ "Station""'^ District Durg, presently Goodluck ^'^ r! ^J •^ ^ /RESPON] [Pl^intiff C>.\^N^ LEGAL _OF DECEA8ED HEBFONDEHTJf®^ MADANLAL AGBAWAL 1. Mukesh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Shri Madan Lal Agarwal aged about 44 years. 2. Jitendra Agarwal, son of Late Shri Madan Lal Agarwal, aged about 36 years. 3. Smt. Manju Agarwal, widow of Late Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal (Modi), aged about 50 years. 4. Smt. Ninju Kumari, wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, aged about 46 years. 5. Smt. Sanju Kumari, wife of Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Agarwal, aged about 48 years. 6. Smt. Seema Kumari, wife of Shri Subhash Agarwal, aged about 42 years. 7. Smt. Pratima Kumari, wife of Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal, aged about 40 years. No. 3 to 7 are daughters of Late Madanlal Agarwal and address of all the legal heirs is Agarwal Medical Stores, G.E. Road, BMY Charoda, District Raipur (C.G.) .• .,€. ..°tt~ ! ^y^ ^L_r~" a. Gurbacheri Kaur, of ' Late , about 62 years. b, Sardai' , SQH of Sardar Gurbacheiii , about 32 years c. Ainarjeet , oflate Giirbechaii , about SOyears Afl resident of C/o -Dutta'STD PCO, , Raipur (C.G.i Smt. Rajiiidar Kaur , about 36 yeois , Daiighter of of Sardar Joginer ,• Resident of H.No. 220 ,Pa2idey House , Near Paiiey Nursmi Honie Sgsita cotony , Raipur (C.G.). Snit. Raojeet Kaur , about 35 years , of late Sardar Gurbacliaji , wife of Arvmder Smgji Mucdial , resident of MIG-141, near V/ater Tarik ; Near Bliarat Mata School 'Tatibandfa, Raipiir (C.G.). Snit. Jasbeer , 33 , of Sa.rd.ar Gii.rbacliazi , -wife ofSardar G-'urjeet , of MIG-141, ziear Water Taiik , Near Bharat Scliool Tatibaiidli, Raipur (C.G.). XI-HC—78 ^IFIdT ^Hra» '3^ ^ll^Krl^, ^tll^^Ko, [®l<nH^< ...E.^.:.....(Lt..J..t>.^'... "^200 ^?T TT?^T ( ^i^®f^T) 3TT^r ^T T^IT^ "cf^T 3TI^?T^RW I^fTW^^T ^H^y c?iH{<n<fll '?TW^f ^ f^st Tf^f^R ^3tRW31T^T /. ,. V- SB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kiimar Mishra, J. 2.08.2010 Shri Kshitiz Sharma, coujnsel ShriG.R. Miri and Shril No.l to4and6ato6f. for the appellants. Ratan Pusty, counsel for respondents Heard on I.A. No.8 for ^ condonation of delay and representatives of deceased, r^ respondent No.3 Goverdhan Pumshottam Das on record. Learned counsel submit^ Lal Agrawal and Pumshottam| this application may be treatecj Goverdhan Das Agrawal. I| substitution of legal heirs of ^ been allowed. In view ofthe above, all The delayin moving the [ Abatement is set aside. ^ettmg aside abatement, IA. No.7 for I.A. No. 6 for bringing legal 'spondent No.2 Madan Lal Agrawal, Das Agrawal and respondent No.4 that legal representatives of Madan Das are already on record, therefore only for deceased, respondent No.3 n connected F.A. No. 354/2000, ^overdhan Das Agrawal has already :he three applications are allowed. application is condoned. ~5^( r^WW^, ^Tll-y^Ko, [s«rll'H^< .£.^..:..1.l3..l.<?..£.. ^nwff^pn^ """""""""""""""""""""""""^ 200 ^TI^T Tra?Rl (^f^^) 3n^?T ^»Tfti^i^ WT 3T1^?T sFRN? ^KII^ tifta ^11^1 CM<if<vt<fli *ii*i<rff"? fs^ iPfl^K IR'3TRm ^n^r The appellant is permitte seven days, failing which the aj reference to the court. In view of the above, I. dismissal ofappeal as abated arc I.A. No.3 is an applicatior for information regarding death c I.A. No.3 is disposed of. I.A. No.4 is for taking doc The documents are receipt Documents are taken on r€ I.A. No.4 is allowed. I.A. No.9 under section 1 j bonafide mistake. Counsel for the appellant ^ I.A. No.9 is, therefore, dis| Shri Kshitiz Sharma, lear^ that due to bonafide error whi| compliance ofthe courts order d| j^ieirs of appellants have wr<| d to amend the cause title within 3peal shall stand dismissed without A. No.5 and I.A. No.IO both for dismissed. under Order 22 Rule 10-A ofCPC (fthe respondent. jments on record. s ofpayment ofrent. cord. il ofCPC is for condonation of any loes not press this a^pUcation. nissed as not pressed. ed counsel for the appellant submits e incorporating the amendment in ited 20/08/08, thenames ofthe legal ingly been appended/incorpomted 1 ^Vf^ ^^T ^CTTOT, <R^f<pTf^-^-FS/l47—2/2010—1,00,000< -^ ^^ ^T Ri^i<4» WT3F|T^T si»*iiq» "'^ < ^ T" 'S^ r^WW^, W^\W\<o, ^V\W^. ..£.>^:..../vo..'..l?.J.<B£. ^wvn w*ai<t» """""""""""""""""^ 200 311^1xf^ (l^f^^T) ^iTW^ftrra^r atter showing them as legal heirs of submits that he may be permittec Counsel for the responden On due consideration, tfae ^rayer Counsel for the appellanl appeal by incorporating the nai No.6 in the memo of appeal legal heirs ofthe appellant whi^ the cause title while incorporatin|g the Leamed counsel for the order granted earlier should be paying rent regularly and is inf vanous nature. Leamed counsel for the that there is no default of such interim order. List this appeal for fmal in the week commencing 16th A( cr)j<it<!i<jit *ii*«riT^f Fs^ <f^t^l< i^ ^fRw 3?n^r 1-espondent No.6, Mansukh Das. He to correct the mistake. has no objection to this prayer. is allowed. is permitted to correct the memo of aes of the legal heirs of respondent deleting/removing the names of h is vvrongly mentioned/appended in g the amendment. respondent submits that the interim /acated, because the appellant is not the habit of committmg default of ak)pellant opposing the prayer submits ature, which would-'call for vacating earing along with FA No. 354/2000 gust, 2010. _-—— Sd//- prasbantKumarMistaa Judge mw^ ^^ ^H^^ <R^"<pri^-^-FS/H7—2/2010—1,00,000. ,^ -^