Dismissed

Shrikant Tiwari v. Mongrabai

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026SA/399/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur held that the second appeal stands abated and dismissed due to the death of the sole respondent, Mongra Bai, in 2023. The appellant failed to substitute legal representatives within the time limit prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay. Consequently, the appeal proceeded as having no survivor and was dismissed by operation of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal stands dismissed as abated because the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent were not brought on record within the limitation period.

Shrikant Tiwari Vs Mongrabai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

(SA No. 399 of 2013)

¶3

Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI DIWAN DIWAN KAIWART KAIWART Date: 2026.09.18 11:00:16 +0530

CGHC010193572013

2026:CGHC:40486

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

SA No. 399 of 2013

¶9

1 - Shrikant Tiwari S/o Late Ramanuj Tiwari Aged About 61 Years R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Mongrabai D/o Kheduram Aged About 45 Years R/o Masanganj, Azad Nagar, In Front Of House Of Ramchandra Mishra, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate For Respondent:None though served.

¶15

SB - Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

16.09.2026

¶18

1. The matter is taken up today as per order sheet dated 28.03.2023. It is reported that the sole respondent namely, Mongra Bai has died.

¶19

2. On the death of the said respondent, the appellant was required to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal

¶20

¶21

(SA No. 399 of 2013)

¶22

representatives of deceased sole respondent, Mongra Bai, on record. However, despite the said opportunity, no application for substituting the legal representatives has been filed by the appellant till date.

¶23

3. The period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing the legal representatives on record has already expired. The appellant has also failed to take appropriate steps for setting aside the abatement within the prescribed time period and has not placed any satisfactory explanation before the Court for the prolonged delay and for non compliance with order dated 20.03.2023.

¶24

4. In these circumstances, this appeal stands abated, as the respondent, Mongra Bai, died in the year 2023 and her legal representatives have not been brought on record, by operation of law under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since the deceased respondent was the sole respondent and there is no surviving respondent against whom the appeal can effectively proceed, accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed having become abated.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sushma Sawant)

¶27

@d!t!

Shrikant Tiwari v. Mongrabai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Tiwari v. Mongrabai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases