Vishal Giri vs Duliya Bai
2021 Latest Caselaw 3279 Chatt

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                  Order Sheet
                               FA No. 22 of 2021
1. Vishal Giri S/o Devilal Giri (Devlal Baba) Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Silva,
   Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2. Lalit Giri S/o Devlal Baba (Giri) Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Silva, Tahsil
   Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ---- Appellants
                                    Versus
1. Duliya Bai D/o Chaturgiri W/o Devlal Giri Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Silva,
   P. O. Nipaniya, Tahsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District
   Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Through General Power Of Attorney
   Ramesh Giri S/o Devlal Giri, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Silva, P. O.
   Nipaniya, Tahsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda
   Bazar -Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.........(Plaintiff)
2. Prcchi Agriculture And Properties (Pvt.) Limited Mahalaxmi Market Pandri,
   Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Director Director
   Subhashchand Jain S/o B. C. Jain, Aged About 61 Years R/o Tagore Nagar,
   Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh .......(Defendant No. 3)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-
   Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Respondents

FA No. 49 of 2021 • Prachi Agriculture And Properties Private Limited, Mahalaxmi Market, Pandari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Through Its Authorized Signatory Namely Shri Gopal Panigrahi, S/o. Shri C.P. Panigrahi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Nilanchal Vihar, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Registered Office At 1st Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Subhashchand Jain, S/o. D.C. Jain, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Has Retired From The Post Of Director In The Company Therefore The Appeal Has Been Filed Through Authorised Signatory Of The Company., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus

1. Duliya Bai, D/o Chaturgiri, W/o Devlal Giri, Aged About 75 Years R/o. Village Silwa, Post Nipania, Tehsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Ramesh Giri, S/o.Devlal Giri, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Village Silwa, Post Nipania, Tehsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Vishal Giri, S/o Devlal Giri (Devlal Baba), Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Silwa, Post Nipania, Tehsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

3. Lalit Giri, S/o Devlal Giri (Devlal Baba) Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Silwa, Post Nipania, Tehsil Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

23-11-2021 Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Swati Agrawal, counsel for the appellants in FA No.22 of 2021 and respondents No. 2 and 3 in FA No 49 of 2021.

Mr. Devershi Thakur, counsel for respondent No.1 in FA No. 22 of 2021 and FA No 49 of 2021.

Mr. Anurag Singh, counsel for respondent No.2 in FA No 22 of 2021 and appellant in FA No. 49 of 2021.

Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A.No. 1 of 2021 filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim relief in FA No. 22 of 2021.

Learned Sr. Advocate would submit that the sale deed executed by the appellants in favour of defendant/respondent No.2 has been declared null and void by the trial court on a perverse finding, considering the evidence and material on record.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 1 and 3 would support the judgment and decree of the trial court, but learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the case of the appellants.

Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I.A.No. 1 of 2021 is allowed and it is directed that status quo with regard to suit property as exists today shall be maintained by the parties, in other words neither the appellants nor respondents No. 1 and 2 shall further alienate the suit property, till disposal of the appeal.

In view of the order passed on I.A.No.1 of 2021 in FA No. 22 of 2021, no fresh order is required to be passed on I.A.No.1 of 2021 in FA No 49 of 2021.

List both the cases for final hearing after eight weeks.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Raju