Allowed¶57

Smt. Fulkunwar (Since Dead) through Lrs v. Sonraj (Since Dead) through Lrs

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2026MCC/438/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 of the Limitation Act; 607 days delay; restoration of second appeal dismissed for default; peremptory order dated 11.07.2024; dismissal dated 25.07.2024; SA No.475/2003 (Smt. Ful Kunwar and Ors. Vs. Sonraj and Ors.); MCC No. 438 of 2026; I.A. No.01/2026; no objection by State counsel; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 607 days in filing the MCC condoned; Registry directed to restore SA No.475/2003 (Smt. Ful Kunwar and Ors. Vs. Sonraj and Ors.) in its original number. ¶57

Smt. Fulkunwar (Since Dead) through Lrs Vs Sonraj (Since Dead) through Lrs — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:20889

RUKHSAR BANO

NAFR

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.05.06 16:23:16 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCC No. 438 of 2026

¶8

1 - Smt. Fulkunwar (Since Dead) Through Lrs Nil

¶9

1.1 - Anandram S/o Puran Lodhi Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bharda, Tahsil Chuikhandan District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Smt. Sundarin Bai W/o Meghnath Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Peti, Tahsil Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Tijan Bai (Since Dead ) Through Lrs Nil

¶12

3.1 - Krishna Verma S/o Jagatram Aged About 45 Years Tahsil Chuikhadan District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)

¶13

3.2 - Rukhmani W/o Chain Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Supela Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.)

¶14

3.3 - Bunty W/o Vishnu Aged About 40 Years R/o Gadadih Tahsil Khairagarh , District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)

¶15

3.4 - Reena W/o Gautam Aged About 38 Years R/o Chaarbhta, Tahsil Chuikhadan District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.)

¶16

4 - Mogra Bai W/o Jasdeo Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jangalpur, Tahsil Chhuikhadan District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶17

... Petitioners

¶18

versus

¶19

1 - Sonraj (Since Dead) Through Lrs Nil

¶20

1.1 - Chukibai Wd/o Sonraj Aged Not Known R/o Village Atariya Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶21

1.2 - Lila Bai D/o Sonraj Aged About Not Known R/o Village Atariya Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶22

¶23

1.3 - Tara Bai D/o Sonraj Aged About Not Known R/o Village Atariya Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶24

1.4 - Shanti Bai D/o Sonraj Aged About Not Known R/o Village Atariya Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶25

1.5 - Jamuna Bai D/o Sonraj Aged About Not Known R/o Village Atariya Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶26

1.6 - Gulabo D/o Sonraj Aged About Not Known R/o Village Atariya Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶27

2 - Gautam Chand S/o Ghebanchand Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhdan District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶28

3 - Sumermal S/o Ghebanchan Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhdan District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶29

4 - Heera Lal S/o Ghebanchand Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhdan District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶30

5 - Ghengha Bai W/o Ghebarchand Aged About 83 Years R/o Village Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhdan District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶31

6 - Kanchan Bai D/o Ghebarchand Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Semra Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶32

7 - Rukmani Bai D/o Ghebarchand Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Semra Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶33

8 - Navin Kumar S/o Kacharulal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Somani DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶34

9 - Pravin Kumar S/o Kacharulal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Somani DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶35

10 - Vipin Kumar S/o Kacharulal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Somani DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶36

11 - Bharti Bai D/o Kacharulal Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Somani DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶37

12 - Arti Bai D/o Kacharulal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Somani DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶38

13 - Mujnoo S/o Manrakhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Somani DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶39

14 - Bahadur S/o Manrakhan Lodhi Aged About 31 Years Occupation Cultivation R/o Village Bhardagond Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶40

15 - Tijau Ram S/o Manrakhan Lodhi Aged About 45 Years Occupation Cultivation R/o Village Bhardagond Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶41

16 - Raghu S/o Manrakhan Lodhi Aged About 42 Years Occupation Cultivation R/o Village Bhardagond Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶42

¶43

17 - Pantu S/o Manrakhan Lodhi Aged About 40 Years Occupation Cultivation R/o Village Bhardagond Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶44

18 - Jorawarmal S/o Hajarimal Occupation Cultivation R/o Village Chamba, Tahsil Shergarh, District- Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

¶45

19 - Champalal S/o Hajarimal Occupation Cultivation R/o Village Chamba, Tahsil Shergarh, District- Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

¶46

20 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶47

... Respondents

¶48

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶49

For Applicants : Mr. Rohan Patnaik, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.20 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.

¶50

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶51

Order on Board

¶52

05/05/2026

¶53

Heard on I.A. No.01/2026, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

¶54

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Second Appeal No.475/2003 was dismissed on 25.07.2024 in compliance of the peremptory order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court, as the applicants/appellants could not remove the default within the stipulated period due to their inability to collect details of the legal heirs of some deceased respondents. He further submits that, subsequently, the applicants/appellants could not contact their counsel, therefore, delay occurred in filing instant petition. He further submits that the delay is bona fide and not mala fide ; hence, the delay in filing instant MCC may be condoned and the MCC be allowed.

¶55

Learned State counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants.

¶56

¶57

Having considered the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as the MCC, the delay of 607 days in filing MCC is hereby condoned. Consequently, the MCC is

¶58

allowed .

¶59

The Registry is directed to restore SA No.475/2003 (Smt. Ful Kunwar and Ors. Vs. Sonraj and Ors.) in its original number.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶62

Rukhsar

Smt. Fulkunwar (Since Dead) through Lrs v. Sonraj (Since Dead) through Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fulkunwar (Since Dead) through Lrs v. Sonraj (Since Dead) 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

Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs Kuldeep Singh Thakur

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Company Limited Vs Smt, Mithila Bai

Smt. Premlata Kedia Vs Mr. Ajit Vasant

Manoj Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dular Sinha Vs the Collector

Bhuwan Bhaskar Singh Vs Shri Sanjay Agrawal