HIGH COURT OF CHHATT13GARH: BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. IVI.C.C. No. 251 of 2008 Appellant 1. Gyan Prakash Gupta (Since deceased) ^ RespQndents 1A. 18. 1C. 1D. Smt. Sukmat Bai, Widow of Late Gyan Prakash Gupta, aged about 50 years, Kumari Sushila, D/o Late Gyan Prakash Gupta, aged about 30 years Kumari Laxmi, D/o Late Gyan Prakash Gupta, aged'about 26 years Kumari Sunita, D/o Late Gyan Prakash Gupta, agedabout 14years (since deceased) 1E. Ravi Kumar, S/o Late GyanPrakash Gupta, aged about 18 years 1F. Kumari Monika, D/o Late Gyan Prakash Gupta, aged about 16 years (Appellants 1-F minor through mother and guardian Smt. Sukhmati Bal, appeilantNo.l-A) (Ail R/o Near Jute Mill, Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Ramniwas Agrawal (Since deceased) 1A. Smt. Maya Devi, widow of Late Ramniwas Agrawal, 1B. Kamatkumar Agrawal, S/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, aged about 35 years 1C. Smt. Sitadevi Agrawal, D/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, aged about 28 years 1D. Kumari Geeta, D/o Late Ramniwas Agrawa!, aged about 27 years. 1E. Kumari Anita, D/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, aged about 24 years 1F. Mukesh Agrawal, S/o Late Ramniwas Agrawai, aged about 26 years 1G. Kumari Khushboo Agrawal, D/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, aged about 21 years 1H. Aashish Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, aged about 20 ^r r ^.- '^ years 1J Kumari Preeti Agrawal, D/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, aged about 18 years 2. Jwala Prasad, S/o Brujraj Sharma, aged about 45 years, Truck Driver, R/o behind Gandhiganj, Raigarh (CG) 3. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh), Tffrough Collector, District, Raigarh (CG) Application for modification of order^ated 12.0^,2008jpassedbv Hon'ble Shri Justice D.R. Deshmukh in second appeal No.268/1990 Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellant/s. Shri Akhif Agrawai, Pl forthe State/respondent No.3. ORALORDER ' (Passed on 28.07.2008) Heard on i.A. No.1, which is an appiication under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the M.C.C. (2) The applicants have, in paras 2 and 5 of the application (I.A. No.5), wrongiy mentioned that ttie appiicants had moved an appiication for bringing the legai representatives of respondent No.las alsolhe affidavit because in the same paragraph, they have admitted that such application or affidavit could not be filed. Order dated 12.03.2008 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.268/1990 clearly goes to show that whiie informing the Court about the death of respondent No.l/plaintiff Ramninwas, the appeiiants/defendants took no steps for substitution of iegal representatives of respondent No.l/plaintiff Ramniwas as aiso for setting aside the abatement even after a iapse of 8 years. (3) No ground is made out for condonation of detay in filing this application M.C.C, which in my considered opinion does not !ie and is iiable to be dismissed. G/i^ —^ m ./^^^, /y^, '\ j %^'.^S^. *%,, "s^"'.,.- (4) Accordingly, I.A. No.1 as alsothe M.C.C. i.e. application for modification of order dated 12.03.2008 are dismissed. ^ (5) In view of the above, I.A. No. 2, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for bringing legai representatives on record, I.A. No.3, application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement and I.A. No.4, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay are disposed of. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya »1» ^ Is K^» KB