Govind Kurmi Kshatriya ... vs Divya Kantishikshan Samiti And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1206 Chatt

                          1

                                                 NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 SA No. 69 of 2012

   Govind   Kurmi   Kshatriya     Chhatrawas   Trust
    Committee, Baghera, Tehsil & District Durg
    (CG) through Secretary Dr. Tarun      Nayak, R/o
    Baghera, Ward No.49, Durg, Tehsil & District
    Durg, C.G.

                                      ­­­­ Appellant

                     Versus

  1. Divya Kantishikshan Samiti Panchsheel Nagar,
    Durg, through President, Address - Shivaji
    Vidyapeeth, Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, Tehsil &
    District Durg (CG).

  2. Shivaji Vidyapeeth, Panchsheel Nagar, Durg,
    through Headmaster, Shivaji Vidyapeeth.

                                     ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellant :­ Ms. Trishna Das, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

16/07/2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken

up through video conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in second appeal

preferred by the appellant / plaintiff.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellant / plaintiff

claiming the decree for arrears of rend and

damages.

4. Ms. Trishna Das, learned counsel for the

appellant / plaintiff, would submit that both

the Courts below have concurrently erred in

not awarding arrears of rent and damages

though the decree for eviction has been

granted, as such, the appeal involves

substantial question of law for determination.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellants / plaintiffs, considered his rival

submissions and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

6. The suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment,

arrears of rent and damages, the trial Court

decreed the suit for ejectment but not granted

decree for arrears of rent and damages which

the first appellate Court has also affirmed

holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for

arrears of rent and damages. It is stated at

the bar the second appeal preferred by the

defendant against the decree of the first

appellate Court affirming ejectment has also

been dismissed by this Court.

7. The Courts below have concurrently recorded a

finding that plaintiff is not entitled for

arrears of rent and damages which is finding

of fact based on evidence available on record.

It is neither perverse nor contrary to the

records, as such, I do not find any

substantial question of law for admission of

this second appeal.

8. Accordingly, the second appeal being deviod of

merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

in limine without notice to other side. No

cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Ankit