HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (ARTICLE 227) N0. 4045/2011 PETITIQENRSA DEFENDANTS 1. 2. VERSUS RESPOJiTD^NTS PLAINTIFFS ^ 4, 5. 6. 7A. 7B, 7C. <- 10. 11. 12. Navindralal son of Kis'horilal Swarnkar (C.G.) aged about 40 years. Murali Prasad son. of Kishorilal Swarnkar, aged about 38 years Both resident of Sadar Bazar, Durg (C.G.). Ram Kumar, son of Lakhanlal Swarnkar aged about 42 years Narayan, son of Lakhanlal Swarnkar Aged about 32 years Surendra son of Lakhanlal Swarnkar, aged about 25 years Tirath Kumar, son of Lakhanlal Swarnkar, aged about 22 years Mular Bai, widow of Laxman Prasad Swarnkar, aged about 75 years (Deceased) All residents of Village Nawagaon, P.H.N. 22, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.). Present Address, Sadar Bazar Durg, District Durg (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Tarkeshwar Prasad, son of Lakhanlal Swarnka'-, aged about 55 years Srimati Ganga Devi Swarnkar, wife of Late Kaushal Prasad, aged about 63 yeares Santosh Prasad, son of Kaushal Prasad. Swarnkar, aged about 44 years Respondent nos. 7A to 7C are residents of Near Gupta Nursing Home, Arya Nagar, Durg, Tehsil and DistrictDurg (C.G.). Saraswati Bai, wife of Khubi Ram Soni, aged about 40 years, Resident of Sadar Bazar, Durg, District Durg. Santu Bai, wife of Sitaram Swarnkar, aged about 38 years, Gita Bai, wife of Tarkeshwar Prasad Swarnkar, aged about 35 years. Respodnent nos. 9 & 10 are residents of Pachripara, Durg, District Durg. Sita Bai, wife of Vishnu Prasad Soni, aged about 33 years,, resident of Sadar Bazar, Durg, District Durg. Kumari Prabha Swarnkar, Daughter of Late Kishorilal Swarnkar, aged about 15 years, Through Legal Guardian her mother Dulaurin Bai, resident of Sadar Bazar, Durg District Durg. 2-- 13. Suresh Kumar, son of Late Kishorilal Swarnkar, aged about 37 years, resident of Sadar Bazar, Durg, District Durg. 14. Ratnu, son of Suklu Kewat, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Nawagaon, P.S. Barichowki, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, (C.G.). 15. Hemrai, son of Parau, aged about 37 years, 16. Hemlal son of Parau, aged about 31 years, 17. Shatrughan, son of Parau, aged about 29 years, 18. Bhikhu, son of Parau, aged about 27 years Respondents nos. 14 to 18 are residents of Village Nawagaon, P.S. Borichowki, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, (C.G.). 19. Sheikh Asif Ahmed, aged about 10 years, minor through Legal Guardian father Shaikh Nijamuddin, resident of MIG 1/822, Hudco, Bhilai, District Durg, (C.G.). 20 . Srimati Suchitra Sankure, wife of Sri Vijay Kumar Sankure, aged about 36 years, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Tehsil and District Durg, (C.G.). 21. Sri B.R. Sankure, son of Late Bakaram Sankure, aged about 56 years, resident of Ruvabandha, Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg, (C.G.). 22. Srimati Sushila Sonkure, wife of Sri B.R. Sankure, aged about 50 years, resident of Ruvab&ndha, Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Vishnu Koshta, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 SsTAto 22 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 27/07/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 23/6/2011 passed by 12 Civil Judge Class-II, Durg (C.G.) in s civil suit No. 15A/2010 whereby application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Mular Bai has been allowed after lapse of about 4 years. 2. Shri Vishnu Koshta, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6 are heard. 3. Order impugned, copy of other applications and plaint perused. 4. Pleading made in plaint reveal that even after death of Mular Bai cause of action for suit survived, in these circumstances Court below has not committed any illegality in permitting the plaintiffs for brining legal representatives ofdeceased Mular Bai. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs have not impleaded legal representatives of Mular Bai and they have specifically objected by filing reply. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Court below has not allowed the application subject to payment of cost Qn the ground of willful delay on the part of the plaintiffs. 7. As per allegation made in plaint even after death of Mular Bai cause of action survived therefore for proper adjudication of the case legal representatives of Mular Bai were required to be impleaded as party. By allowing such application Court below has not committed any illegality but while passing such order Court below has not considered willful act of other plaintiffs for not filing the application within time. In these circumstances notice to respondents No. 1 to 5 &7Ato 22 would be only futile exercise. Consequently, order allowing the application is ^ affirmed subject to payment of cost of Rs. l,000/-to the petitioners within 15 days from today by remaining plaintiffs i.e. respondents No. 1 to 4 before the trial Court. 8. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application on the ground of non-impleadment u eus^eys 'd'l "/P^ ' S3(n-i jsd si3 Adoo paypJ33 •8}SOO Ot S13 JSpJO ON •s£ep^ UIL[^IA A\o]3q tjnoo 3L[t sjojsq japjo sq^ jo Adoo sq} 3onpo.id nrqs sj3uopp3<j •MOpq iJ.noQ sqi s-iojsq reg jB^nn jo S3Ap'B}U3S3jd3j \e33\ \\v jo .^