Daulatram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025WPC/1727/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; Order 22 Rule 3 CPC; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; impleadment/substitution of legal heirs of deceased applicant; Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh; revision petition cause-title amendment; hyper-technical view; 90-day period; Article 226 writ; Janjgir-Champa; Daulatram v. State of Chhattisgarh; Ghasnin Bai; Ghasiram; Doulatram.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.05.2016 of the Board of Revenue rejected; the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to bring the legal heirs of Late Ghasnin Bai (namely Ghasiram & Doulatram) allowed, with direction to incorporate the necessary amendment in the cause title of the revision petition before the Board of Revenue. ¶¶38

Daulatram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.05.2016 of the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to bring the legal heirs of the deceased-applicant of the revision petition on record, on the ground that it was filed beyond 90 days without explanation for delay, warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

In rejecting the application, the Board of Revenue adopted a hyper-technical view, which amounted to an illegality warranting interference by the High Court; accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Although the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not filed within 90 days, the delay was not caused deliberately or with mala fide intention; the applicants, being the legal heirs of the deceased-applicant of the revision petition, were not aware of the pendency of the proceedings, which caused the delay in preferring the application.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

The application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner for bringing the legal heirs of Late Ghasnin Bai, namely Ghasiram & Doulatram, is allowed, and the necessary amendment is to be incorporated in the cause title of the revision petition before the Board of Revenue.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) allowed WPC No. 1727 of 2016, filed by Daulatram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur order dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) rejecting his application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to bring the legal heirs of Late Ghasnin Bai (namely Ghasiram & Doulatram) on record in a pending revision petition, on the ground that the application was filed after one year — beyond the 90-day period — with no explanation for the delay. Held: the delay was not deliberate or mala fide, the legal heirs being unaware of the pendency of the proceedings; the Board of Revenue had taken a hyper-technical view, amounting to an illegality warranting interference. The impugned order was rejected, the heirs' application was allowed, and the necessary amendment is to be incorporated in the cause title of the revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

Page 1 of 3

2025:CGHC:30808

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1727 of 2016

¶6

Daulatram S/o Gashiram, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Karnaud, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - The Tahsildar, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Gajanand S/o Nandjharokha.

¶15

7 - Mohitram S/o Khemhram (adopted son)

¶16

8 - Darasram S/o Konda (Dead) Through Lrs.

¶17

8 (a) - Shankar S/o Darasram.

¶18

8 (b) - Chandrakumar S/o Darasram.

¶19

8 (c) – Fulkumari daughter of Darasram, W/o Kholbahra, R/o Pirda, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶20

8 (d) - Bhagwati Bai Wd/o Darasram.

¶21

No. 6, 7 & 8(a), (b), (d) are resident of Village- Kanwaljhar, Tahsil- Dabhra,

¶22

District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶23

... Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Resp. No. 6, 7, 8(b) & 8(c) : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer.

¶24

ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN

¶25

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.28 16:52:08 +0530

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶28

Order on Board

¶29

07/07/2025

¶30

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected on the count that the application has not been filed within 90 days as the same has been filed after one year and no explanation has been given for delay in filing the application.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondents No. 6, 7, 8(b) & 8(c) would submit that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court as the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality or irregularity in treating the application as abetted and would for for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶33

From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has not been filed within 90 days but it cannot be said that the delay has been caused deliberately or with malafide intention as evident from the contents made in the application for condonation of delay.

¶34

In the application, it has been contended that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased-applicant of the revision petition and they are not aware of the pendency of the proceedings which has caused delay in preferring the application.

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

Considering the facts mentioned in the application, it is quite vivid that the Board of Revenue has adopted hyper technical view and has rejected the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. which is nothing but illegality committed by the Board of Revenue which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be and it is hereby rejected.

¶37

The application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner for bringing legal heirs of Late Ghasnin Bai namely Ghasiram & Doulatram is allowed and the necessary amendment be incorporated in the cause title of the revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

¶38

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed.

¶39

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶40

Arun

Daulatram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulatram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Payarelal Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Barkat Ali Farishta Vs Smt.vijay Laxmi Sharma And Ors.

Yashoda Bai Alias Ashoda Bai Vs Union Of India

Nagendra Chaudhary Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Dallirajhara

Kanhai Vs Loknath and Ors.