Smt. Shushila Devi Chimani Vs Raipur Development Authority

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:51832-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.17 15:40:32 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 753 of 2025

¶7

1. Smt. Shushila Devi Chimani W/o Shri Trilokchand Chimnani Aged About 74 Years R/o Idgahbhata, Lakhe Nagar, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. Anil Kumar Chimnani S/o Shri Trilokchand Chimnani Aged About 44 Years R/o Idgahbhata, Lakhe Nagar, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1. Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer, Raipur.

¶12

2. Bank Of Baroda A Banking Company Duly Incorporated Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act. Inter-Alia Amongst Other Branches A Branch Office At Mahavir Goshala Premises, Moudhapara, Raipur, The Chief Manager Bank Of Baroda, Mahavir Goshal Branches A Branch Office At Mahavir Goshala Premises, Moudhapara, Raipur Through The Chief Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Mahavir Goshala Premises Moudhapara, Raipur.

¶13

3. M/s Medico Surgical Enterprises Through Shri Prakash Vatyani, S/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa (Vatyani), B-9, Suman Complex, Near Madhuvan Hotel, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2

¶15

4. Smt. Kanta Devi Wd/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa Aged About 60 Years R/o Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5. Prakash Wadhwa S/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa Aged About 44 Years R/o Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6. Mahesh Wadhwa S/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa Aged About 44 Years R/o Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Appellant	: Mr. B.P. Sharma, along with Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2	Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17/10/2025

¶23

This MCC has been filed for restoration of WPC No. 3130 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge due to failure in carrying out amendment in pursuance of pre-emptory order dated 21.02.2024.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred WPC No. 3130 of 2018, wherein the pre-emptory order dated 21.02.2024 was passed. The relevant part of the same is reproduced below:-

¶25

“……

¶26

Taking into consideration the submission made by

¶27

3

¶28

learned counsel for petitioners, application is allowed on their peril. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of seven working days, failing which, present petition shall be dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

¶29

Consequently, I. A. no. 2, application for urgent hearing and I. A. no. 3, application for deletion of name of deceased respondent stand disposed of.

¶30

Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.”

¶31

Since the said amendment could not be carried out the WPC No. 3130 of 2018 was dismissed without reference to the Bench. He further submits that thereafter MCC No. 890 of 2025, was filled for restoration of the WPC No. 3130 of 2018. The same was also dismissed by order dated 29.08.2025 which reads as under:-

¶32

“1) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court in WPC No. 3130 of 2018 vide order dated 21.02.2024, allowed the amendment application and granted seven working days' time to the petitioners therein to carry out the amendment but said order could not be complied and due to peremptory order, petition was dismissed. He further submits that amendment could not be incorporated as petitioner's husband i.e. power of attorney holder underwent knee

¶33

4

¶34

surgery and there was clerical error, therefore order dated 21.02.2024 could not be complied with. He prays to restore the petition.

¶35

2) Heard.

¶36

3) Evidently, amendment application was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2024 and petitioners were directed to carry out the amendment within period of seven working days. In this application, applicants have assigned the reason with regard to knee surgery of petitioner's husband i.e. power of attorney holder but the amendment was to be carried out by the counsel for the petitioners. It is further pleaded that there was some clerical error but I am unable to understand what clerical error erupted.

¶37

4) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I am not convinced with the reasons assigned in the application. Consequently, this application is hereby rejected.”

¶38

Hence, this writ appeal has been filed for setting aside the order passed in the MCC and for restoration of WPC to its original number.

¶39

On due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the present appeal, the same is allowed. The order dated 29.08.2025 passed in MCC No. 895 of 2025 is set aside and the writ petition is

¶40

5

¶41

restored to its original number i.e. WPC No. 890 of 2025, subject of payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of 3 weeks from today and the said amount shall be transmitted to the Government Multi-Disabled Home, Village Pendri, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.).

¶42

It is made clear that if the appellant fails to deposit the said amount within stipulated period, the present order will loose its efficacy. SD/-

¶43

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶44

Jyoti

Smt. Shushila Devi Chimani v. Raipur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shushila Devi Chimani v. Raipur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avi Pathak @ Lucky Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Imran Khokhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Abhilekha Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Domar Singh Verma Vs Rajaram Baghel

Ku. Smriti Verma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh