Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Chaturbhuj – Appellant
Versus
Natwarlal – Respondent
FA No. 26 of 2000 and FA/3 of 2000
Decided On : 04-03-2022
Amendment - Substitution of Parties - Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC - FA No. 26 of 2000, FA No. 3 of 2000 - Summary of the judgment: The court allowed various applications for substitution of parties and condonation of delay in carrying out the amendments under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The applications were made to delete the names of deceased parties and bring on record their legal representatives. The court directed the necessary amendments to be carried out within a week and listed both cases for final hearing after two weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The court allowed applications for substitution of parties and condonation of delay in carrying out the amendments under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the applicants, allowing the substitution of parties and condonation of delay in carrying out the amendments.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for the substitution of parties and condonation of delay in carrying out the amendments in case of the death of a party.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications for substitution of parties and condonation of delay in carrying out the amendments and listed both cases for final hearing after two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. Mr. Praful Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, counsel for the appellants in FA No. 26 of 2000 and respondent in FA No. 3 of 2000.
2. Mr. Harshwardhan Advocate for respondent No. 2 in FA No 26 of 2000.
3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vivek Tripathi, counsel for the respondent No. 2 in FA No. 3 of 2000.
4. Heard on I.A. No. 12 of 2021 filed in FA No. 26 of 2000 which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No. 1(C)(i)-Smt. Sandhya Savariya from the array of the cause title as she died on 29-7-2021 as her legal representatives as respondents No. 1 (C)(ii) and 1 (C) (iii) are already on record.
5. On due consideration I.A. No. 12 of 2021 is allowed the appellant is directed to delete the name of respondent No. 1 (c) (I) from the array of the cause title within one week.
6. Also heard on application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC in FA No. 26 of 2000.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 2 Chandrakant died on 19-10-2021 leaving behind his legal representatives i.e., 2-a Mahesh Sawariya s/o. Late Chandrakant Sawariya, aged about 62 years, 2-b Mayur Sawariya s/o. Late Chandrakant Sawariya, aged about 48 years, both r/o. Village Wagholi, Lohergaon Road behind Wagheshwar temple, Wagholi, Pune (MH). He would further submit that by this application he wants to delete the name of deceased respondent No. 2 Chandrakant and wants to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2 Chandrakant as mentioned above.
8. On due consideration, the application is allowed and appellant is permitted to delete the name of deceased respondent No. 2 Chandrakant and bring on record his legal representatives. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week.
9. In FA No. 3 of 2000, heard on I.A. No. 17 of 2021 which is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for substituted service.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 1(a) Chaturbhuj died on 7-2-2021, leaving behind his legal representatives i.e., 1(a)(i) Chaya Savaria wd/o. Late Chaturbhuj, aged about 63 years, 1(a)(ii) Komal Gardi, d/o. Late Chaturbhuj, aged about 33 years and 1(a)(iii) Disha parab, D/o. Late Chaturbhuj aged about 30 years. All are r/o. 16, Jevan Parag, Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (East) Mumbai. He would further submit that by this application he wants to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 as mentioned above.
11. On due consideration, the application is allowed and appellant is permitted to delete the name of deceased respondent No. 1 (a) and bring on record his legal representatives. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week.
12. Also heard on IA, No. 18 of 2021 filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for substituted service.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during pendency of this appeal, respondent No. 2(a) namely Savita died on 5-3-2021, leaving behind her legal representative i.e., 2(a)(i) Neena Chawda w/o. Kirti Kumar Chawda, aged about 55 years, r/o. Balsam, Shalimar, Township, A.B. Road, Indore (MP). He would further submit that by this application he wants to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No. 2(a) as mentioned above.
14. On due consideration, the application is allowed and appellant is permitted to delete the name of deceased respondent No. 2 (a) and bring on record her legal representative. Necessary amendment be carried out within a week.
15. Also heard on I.A. No. 19 of 2021, which is an application for condonation of delay in carrying out the amendment.
16. On due consideration I.A. No. 19 of 2021 is allowed and the appellant is directed to carry out the amendment as ordered by this court on 30-3-2017.
17. Also heard on I.A. No. 20 of 2021, which is an application for deleting the name of appellant No. 1 (b)(i) from array of the cause title.
18. Lea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
