Daulatram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

For Resp. No. 6, 7, 8(b) & 8(c) : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board /2025

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun