Chattisgarh High Court
Prem (Died) Through Legal Heirs vs Bechuram And Ors on 11 April, 2025
1/4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 324 of 2015
Prem (Died) Through Legal Heirs & Others versus Bechuram & Others
Order Sheet
03.04.2025 Mr. Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, counsel for respondent
No. 1.
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that a Will was executed by respondent No. 1 Bechuram
on 24.12.2020 who during pendency of the appeal has
expired on 25.10.2021, therefore, he has filed an
application filed under Order 22 Rule 10A of Code of Civil
procedure for substituting legal representatives of
deceased respondent No. 1 Bechuram namely
Budhmaniya, Ramkishun and Sumesh on record.
On due consideration, the same is allowed and it is
directed that Budhmaniya Bai be arrayed as respondent
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2025.04.11
17:53:52
+0530
No. 1(a) in the cause title.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
in the said application, it has been contended that
Budhmaniya is daughter of the deceased Bechuram, this
fact is not disputed, accordingly, Budhmaniya be arrayed
as legal representative of deceased respondent No. 1
Bechuram. So far as other legal representatives namely
Ramkishun and Sumesh are concerned, it has been
contended that they are not legal representative and if
they intend to become legal representatives on the
strength of Will, an enquiry has been conducted by the
learned trial court regarding their character. To
substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the
appellants has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Mahant Satyanand @ Ramjee
Singh vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan and others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 486.
This legal preposition is not disputed by the learned
counsel for respondent, accordingly, the record be sent to
the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court is
directed to conduct the enquiry to ascertain the status of
Ramkishun and Sumesh ascertaining whether they are
legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1-
Bechuram or not.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that during pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 2
Devnarayan has expired on 07.08.2018, therefore, he has
filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the application under Order
22 Rule 4 C.P.C. for substitution of legal representatives
and application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for setting
aside abatement in respect of respondent No. 2.
On due consideration, application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the
application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. for setting aside
abatement is allowed and delay in filing the application is
hereby condoned.
Learned counsel for the appellants would further
submit that he has also filed I.A. No. 05/2021, application
under Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for setting aside the
abatement in respect of respondent No. 2.
On due consideration and for the reasons
mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants would further
submit that he has also filed I.A. No. 04/2021, application
under Order 22 rule 4 of C.P.C. for substitution of legal
representative of respondent No. 2 who is already
proceeded ex-parte before trial Court namely Rajwali and
Heerasingh on record and they may be arrayed as 2(a)
and 2(b) in the cause title.
On due consideration and for the reasons
mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to
incorporate necessary amendment in the cause title and
amended cause title be filed within a week and thereafter,
the record be sent back to the learned trial Court within 10
days from today for enquiry as directed by this Court as
aforestated. The learned trial Court is directed to conduct
the enquiry on or before 5th August, 2025.
List this case on 5th August, 2025.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Manish
