Rahul Deo Shukla Vs Smt. Sushila Bai (Died) through Lrs-

1.1 - Rajendra Soni S/o Late Shri Kashi Prasad Soni Aged About 65 Years R/o Arti Jwellers, Sadar Bazar Road, M.G. Road, Sarafa Line, Tehsil Balodabazar, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶11

1.2 - Munna Soni S/o Late Shri Kashi Prasad Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o Arti Jwellers, Sadar Bazar Road, M.G. Road, Sarafa Line, Tehsil Balodabazar, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶12

1.3 - Keshav Soni S/o Late Shri Kashi Prasad Soni Aged About 60 Years R/o Arti Jwellers, Sadar Bazar Road, M.G. Road, Sarafa Line, Tehsil Balodabazar, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶13

2 - Smt. Gunmala Devi Golchha, W/o Shri Sonraj Golchha R/o C-113/05, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G.

¶14

3 - Sonraj Golchha W/o Pukhraj Golchha R/o C-113/05, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

24.04.2026

¶20

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date: 2026.04.25 11:17:58 +0530

¶21

2

¶22

1. Heard on IA No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing MCC.

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that on 20.9.2024, when the case was called for hearing, the applicant/appellant could not appear, as he was not aware about listing of the case and due to inadvertence, the counsel could not notice the listing of the case. Hence, delay of 382 days has occurred in filing the MCC. It is contended that the delay is bonafide and not intentional and the applicant/appellant wants to decide the appeal on merits. Hence, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶25

4. Having considered the contention made by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, on due consideration, delay of 382 days in filing the MCC is condoned in the interest of justice. It is well settled that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.

¶26

5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed. The delay of 382 days in filing the MCC is hereby condoned.

¶27

6. Also heard on IA No.02/2025, application seeking leave to implead legal representative of respondent No.1; IA No.03/2025, application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC; IA No.04/2025, application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and IA No.05/2025, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶28

7. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that respondent No.1 Sushila Bai, who was residing at Baloda Bazar, died on 04.01.2019. It is further submitted that respondents No.2 & 3 were not aware of death of respondent No.1 and they came to know about her death only on 06.11.2025.

¶29

3

¶30

Thereafter, they informed about aforesaid facts to their counsel, which resulted in delay in filing the application for substitution. Hence, it is prayed that aforesaid applications may be allowed.

¶31

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the said applications.

¶32

9. On due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the applications, IA No.02/2025, 03/2025, 04/2025 & 05/2025 are allowed in the interest of justice. Since the applicant/appellant has already impleaded the Lrs. of deceased respondent No.1 in this MCC, therefore, the same is taken on record and accepted by this Court.

¶33

10. Also heard on MCC filed for restoration of FA No.100/2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide Order dated 20.9.2024.

¶34

11. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the earlier submissions, contends that the applicant/appellant wants to contest the appeal on merit, hence, it is prayed that present MCC may be allowed.

¶35

12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the above prayer.

¶36

13. Having considered the submissions advanced and the reasons stated in the application, and in view of the settled principle that matters should be decided on merits, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the MCC in the interest of justice.

¶37

14. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The Registry is directed to restore F.A. No. 100/2007 to its original number and list the matter for hearing in due course as per the roster.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶40

Bini

Rahul Deo Shukla v. Smt. Sushila Bai (Died) through Lrs-

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Deo Shukla v. Smt. Sushila Bai (Died) through Lrs-

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

Sandhya Patel Vs Union of India

Manav Rachna Education Society Vs Union of India

Smt. Neetilika Sharma Vs Rituraj Raghuvanshi

Lt. Col. Vijay Bahadur Thapa Vs Union of India

Tejram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Champeshwar Verma Vs Smt. Lokeshwari Verma