Govind Prasad vs Satyaprakash Gupta (Dead) ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2670 Chatt

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                  Order Sheet
                               FA No. 443 of 2019
1. Govind Prasad S/o Ishwar Prasad Aged About 56 Years,
2. Neelmani S/o Ishwar Prasad Aged About 53 Years,
3. Baijnath S/o Ishwar Prasad Aged About 50 Years,
4. Suresh Kumar S/o Ishwar Prasad Aged About 46 Years,
5. (a)Smt. Chandrika Soni Wd/o Dinbandhu Soni Aged About 57                    Years,
   (b)Umashankar      S/o    Dinbandhu     Soni    Aged  About 38              Years,
   (c)Devika Soni D/o Dinbandhu Soni Aged About 29 Years
6. Amrika, D/o Ishwar Prasad Aged About 54 Years
   All are by Caste-Soni, R/o Village Umreli, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba
   Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Appellants
                                     Versus
1. Satyaprakash Gupta (Dead) Through Lrs., As Per Honble Court Dt. 24-11-2021.
   1.1 - Smt. Suman Gupta W/o Late Satyaprakash Gupta, Aged About 55 Years
   1.2 - Shubham Kumar Gupta S/o Late Satyaprakash Gupta, Aged About 21 Years
   Both are R/o Gupta Clinic, Near Loins Chowk, Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa
   Chhattisgarh
2. Hutas Prasad Soni S/o Ganga Prasad Soni, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village
   Umreli, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
4. Pushpa D/o Ishwar Prasad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Umreli, Tahsil Kartala,
   District Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Plaintiff No. 7)
                                                                   ---- Respondents

25.4.2022 Mr. Rahul Mishra, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Akash Kundu, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Kshitij

Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr. Malay Jain, counsel for the respondent No.2.

Mr. Ayaz Naved, G.A. for the respondent No.3/State.

None for respondent No.4.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2019, application under Order 39 Rule 1

and 2 of CPC.

Having considered the fact that injunction order was existing

when the trial was going on, further going through the facts of this

case, judgment and decree, in order to avoid the multiplicity of further

proceedings, we deem it proper to direct that status-quo, in respect of

disputed property, as it exists today, be maintained by both the

parties, till the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2019 is disposed of.

I.A. No.4/2021, application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is

not pressed at this stage.

                       SD/-                                SD/-
                 (Goutam Bhaduri )                 (N.K. Chandravanshi)
                       Judge                              Judge




Ayushi