Kailash Shrivas vs Smt. Chanda Shrivas
2022 Latest Caselaw 2212 Chatt

                                           1



                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                               WP227 No. 187 of 2022
              Kailash Shrivas Versus Smt. Chanda Shrivas and others



06.04.2022          Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for Petitioner.
                    Heard.
                    Issue notice to Respondents on payment of process fee. PF be paid

as per rules.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner filed a Civil Suit

for eviction, possession and arrears of rent originally against late Rajesh

Shrivas who was tenant. He submitted written statement and thereafter

became ex parte, the civil suit was decided and ex parte judgment and

decree was passed on 06.05.2016 in favour of plaintiff. The ex parte decree

was challenged by original defendant Rajesh Shrivas preferring an

application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which came to be dismissed by Fourth Civil

Judge, Class II, Raipur. The order of rejection under Order 9 Rule 13 of

CPC was challenged by way of filing miscellaneous appeal. The appellate

court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte judgment and decree.

He also contended that during pendency of application under Order 9 Rule

13, plaintiff 1, Rajesh Shrivas, died and his widow and children were

impleaded as legal representatives. Before the trial Court, widow of late

Rajesh Shrivas submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and

she was also cross-examined. Thereafter, Respondent 2, Shreya Shrivas

d/o late Rajesh Shrivas, moved an application to be represented through a

separate advocate on the ground that she has now become major and

thereafter moved an application seeking for permission to file a separate

written statement and counter claim to the Civil Suit. He submits, that

initially that application was rejected but on account of observations made

in the writ petition bearing W.P.(227) No. 566/2021, said application was

allowed and she was permitted to file separate written statement and

counter claim to the Suit, which is not permissible in the facts of the case.

On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for

petitioner, facts and circumstances of the case and documents available on

record, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that further proceedings

pending in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2009 shall remain stayed till the next date of

hearing.

List this case after receipt of service report.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Pawan