Ramprasad vs Jaleshwar Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 1797 Chatt

                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                                 Order Sheet
                                             F.A No.84 of 2020
1. Ramprasad S/o Gulab Aged About 49 Years Caste Cheek , R/o Village
   Dhodhidand, Tahsil Kunkuri , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
2. Ku. Seema D/o Ramnath Aged About 16 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian
   Ramprasad S/o Gulab, Caste Cheek , R/o Village Dhodhidand, Tahsil Kunkuri ,
   District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
3. Tilaso Wd/o Gulab Aged About 64 Years Caste Cheek , R/o Village Dhodhidand,
   Tahsil Kunkuri , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ---- Appellants
                                                   Versus


1. Jaleshwar Ram S/o Ganpat Aged About 49 Years Caste Cheek, R/o Village
   Dhodhidand, Tahsil Kunkri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.. (Plaintiff)
2. Smt. Jeera W/o Bhuleshwar Aged About 42 Years Caste Mahkul, R/o Village
   Chulhapani, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Tika W/o Madho Aged About 52 Years Caste Mahkul, R/o Village Chulhapani,
   Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
4. Yudhisthir Das S/o Bimbadhar Das Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhodhidand ,
   Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
5. Anak Sai S/o Mahnu Caste Nagwanshi, R/o Village Dhodhidand , Tahsil Kunkuri ,
   District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
6. Bablu S/o Lakhan Aged About 42 Years R/o Moto Line Purani Basti Kunkuri, District
   Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
7. Sandeep S/o Lakhan Sao Aged About 40 Years R/o Moto Line Purani Basti
   Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
8. Anand S/o Sajjan Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dhodhidand, Tahsil Kunkuri,
   District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
9. Salim Knido S/o Silbanus Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dhodhidand, Tahsil
   Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
10. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.


                                                                     ---- Respondents

     5                              Through Video Conference
16.08.2021            Shri JK Saxena, counsel for the Appellants.

Shri Harish Khuntiya, counsel for Respondent No.1. None for Respondents No.2 to 9, though served. Smt Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent No.10.

Heard on I.A No.01/2020, an application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for grant of stay.

Shri Saxena submits that by virtue of the impugned judgment and decree, a direction has been issued by the trial Court for providing the vacant possession of the suit land to Respondent No.1/Plaintiff. It is contended that if the decree is executed during the pendency of this Appeal, which has already been admitted vide order dated 12.03.2020, then the whole purpose of filing this Appeal would be frustrated and he would suffer an irreparable loss in the said eventuality.

On the other hand, Shri Khutiya submits that after due consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the judgment and decree under Appeal has been passed and therefore, the application as made deserves to be rejected.

On due consideration of the aforesaid contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and considering further the decree as passed by the trial Court, which is executable in nature and in the event of its execution pending decision of the Appeal, it would certainly cause an irreparable loss to the Appellants, I am, therefore, inclined to allow this application.

Accordingly, IA No.01/2020 is allowed and it is directed that the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Civil Suit No.1-A/2017 shall remain stayed until further orders subject to Appellants' furnishing the security amount of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned Executing Court within a period of two months from today for due performance of the decree ultimately to be passed by this Court.

It is made clear that if any of the conditions is violated, then this order shall lose its efficacy and the impugned judgment and decree shall become executable forthwith.

IA No.01/2020 thus, stands disposed of.

In view of above, the application marked as IA No.02/2021 for vacating the stay order dated 19.11.2020 is accordingly rejected and disposed of.

Post this matter for final hearing in its usual turn.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

Priya