Smt. Manju Tripathi Vs District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadt, Rajnandgaon

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48555

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3551 of 2022

¶6

1 - Smt. Manju Tripathi W/o Late Shri R.R. Tripathi Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Naya Talab, Gauri Nagar Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadt, Rajnandgaon (Extension Branch), Through Branch Manager District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadit Extension Branch, Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶10

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative Societies Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Ravindra Sharma,Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Shri Pranav Tiwari, Advocate
For RespondentNo.2	: ShriSanjeevAgrawal,Panel Laywer

¶13

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

22/09/2025

¶16

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11/03/2022 passed by the President, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur Camp Court, Raipur in appeal case No.11/2017 by which the learned Tribunal has rejected the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 R/w Section 151 CPC, 1908

¶17

2

¶18

for substitution of legal representatives of deceased appellant – R.R. Tripathi and dismissed the appeal.

¶19

Fact of the case is that the husband of the petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Mandi Branch of District Co-operative Central Bank, Rajnandgaon (CG) and his service was terminated on the allegation of embezzlement of public money by the subordinate of the original appellant R.R.Tripathi. Respondent No.1 bank filed an application for recovery of embezzled amount against the employee who were involved in the said commission of alleged offence before the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, Rajnandgaon (CG). Deputy Registrar partly allowed the application and held that the accountant and peon were involved in the said embezzlement and passed order of recovery against them with interest @ 18% per annum vide order dated 30/03/2013original appellant R.R.Tripathi filed an appeal under Section 78(3) of C.G. Co-operative Society Act, 1960 against order dated 24./11/2016 passed by the Registrar Co-operative Society in Appeal Case No.05/2001. Against that order, the other two employees filed appeal and the appellate authority held that the husband of the petitioner R.R.Tripathi is also involved in the alleged embezzlement and passed the order of recovery against him affirming the order of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society. Against that order the original appellant R.R. Tripathi preferred an appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant R.R.Tripathi passed away on 06/08/2018. Thereafter, on 06/11/2019, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant however, the same was not accompanied with an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned Tribunal dismissed the application only on the ground that no application for condonation of delay has been filed and the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC is filed after delay. He submits that learned Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to file application for condonation of delay and thereafter, could have decided the application. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents oppose the above submission and submit that the application for substitution was filed after a period

¶22

3

¶23

of one year without any application for setting aside abatement or application for condonation of delay.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to move an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act which may be decided by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶25

In view of the above, this Court set aside the impugned order dated 11/03/2022 and the appeal case No.11/2017 pending before the Tribunal is restored to its original number permitting the petitioner to file an application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 12/11/2025. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

¶28

Deepti

¶29

Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2025.09.25
16:03:35
+0530

Smt. Manju Tripathi v. District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadt, Rajnandgaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Tripathi v. District Co-Operative Central Bank Maryadt, Rajnandgaon

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

M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Suraj Kumar Vs Union of India

Damin Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

I.S. Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhram Kashyap Vs District Judge North Baster Kanker

Omkar Shukla Vs Smt. Santoshi Shukla