(;-f^C IN THE HIGH COmT OF CHHAT^E^ARH AT_ BJLASPUR. e.R. N0, l^ | ^2004 APPLICANTs •• ^l. Paran s/o caialtu, age 35 years, / (DFD, NO.l) 2. Narba^a Prakash s/o ©alsiragar, age 55 years * (BPD. N0.4) 3< Batoulal s/o Hiralal, age 3© years. (BFD. N0.5) ^^^" ^^>^...<' :<..y ^^ ^' ?ohar sal s/° Kalaw Sai, age 40 years * (DPB. N0.7) >. ShobhnatM Yadav s/o Not Known OccupatlQR-Teaeher. (©F©, N0<8) ^ 6. Bhola s/o Raghavar. age 40 years. ^/^" (DFD< N0.9) Alj: r/°.vllla9e MaJcanpiar, p.s. & Tehsll Pratappur, ©istrict' Sirguja, C*G» Jr*< V JE R S U S NON-APPLICANT^ , 1. Samjatan s/o Bi^al Das. age 50 / yearst caste-Panika, r/o Makai^ptir, Tehsil Distrlet surguja." €^G^^" ' (PLAINTIFF) ^.2. Bajaro w/o Late Madhai. y laaaran Bal d/o Late Ma<3hal. Both.r/o v^l?-age Makanpur. Post L. Tehsil Pratappyr. bistt." Surguja^ C^G^ (LRs OP DFD. NQ.2) S^^^^^W i^^^^i@I§^^^ ^ .^^ -2- 4» A^Azlz, DoGument »riter, at & / Post Ainbikapiu:^ Sistrict Sarguja, C»©, l. N0<6) 5« The State of M.P. (NowC.G,) through Qallector, surguja* Aabikapxar, C< G^ (PROEORMA DF©. N0*10) ^^' CIVIL REVISION UKQER SECTION 115 OF THE Q^DE OP CTVT1. FEOC2SDURE » 1 XI-HC-22 ^n^i'^T r^iph 3?nf?T 5b^ii^ <ii^a ^.-// •^- ~S^ r^ww^ ^Til^Ko, fa<ni<i^< 31T^3?T xra^? h^.'J...?.l/...Q_ -...<...........................^^ 2^ ^W^l 5h*4lGb l^^sr' 3T7^T ^<nw -^\w ^rf^ 08.02.2005:- Shri A.K.Prasad, learned cou The instant revision has be^n aggrieved by the order passed in ^ the trial Court abating the suit of th< heirs of the deceased/defendant w aside. Learned counsel for the app| the plaintiff to bring the legal hei| namely Madhai who died on 05.0^ date of death. However, an appl] deceased/defendant was only filed for condoning the delay and withoujt abatement. 1 have heard learned counsel The information regarding tt' given by counsel-for the defenda(it application for substitution was file< was dismissed by the trial Court on chl^id^l^ ^i*i<yil '9 f^<^l <f^^i< ^3^TNH3n^r iselfortheapplicants. filed by the applicants as they are isc. Appeal and by which the order of respondents for not bringing the legal ;hin the time prescribed has been set icants submits that it was the duty of rs of the deceased/defendant No. 2 '.1999, within three months from the |cation for bringing legal heirs of the t)n 30.11.1999, without any application any application for setting aside the br the applicants. e death of deceased/defendant was on 24.11.1999 and thereafter the on 30.11.1999. However, the same P9.12.1999 on the ground that the suit t XI-HC-22 ^q^T^T f<riicb ^^icti ^i^a ;'^ ^ c' y 'v\ ^ ^55f ^t^lH^I, ^Tll^^Ko, IG«y1^1< an^r xra^? ...c..:^.-.., (g) WRC'TT^HIch •^ 200- "fgre^T' 371^T'^TTW^f^T ^as-self stood abated and there v^ abatement nor there was any 4 Thereafter, on 23.12.1999 an appli4 supported by one affidavit was fiilej the same was also dismissedl as no application for setting aside the pplication for condonation of delay. lation under Order 22 Rute 9 of C.P.C. Miscellaneous Appeal was impugned order. Looking to the fact that defendant No. 2 was given by coun|sel four months after the death, 1 do opder whereby the learned first miscellaneous appeal and set aside | trial Court and there is no merit in tl' for setting aside the abatement, and on 14.07.2000 against which a prefer|"ed and which was allowed by the th|s information regarding death of the be dismissed and it is accordingly d <=hNfd<lfl'l ^l*4df'? fet2t iF^^K '^^rf^m^n^T nbt for the deceased/defendant almost A^'^7 find any affrFmrtive in the impugned appellate Court has allowed the |the order of abatement passeel by the |e present revision. Thus, it is liable to Imissed. Sd/- DH3RENDRA MISHRA Judge [•q^^f^ <