Mahendra Kumar Dixena vs The General Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 5126 Chatt

                                     -1-



                                                                        NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WP227 No. 318 of 2022

   • Mahendra Kumar Dixena S/o Late Shri Laxmi Prasad Dixena Aged
     About 29 Years R/o M.D. 228, Dipika Colony, Ward No. 13, Dipika,
     Tahsil Katghora, District Korba(C.G.)
                                                               ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
  1. The General Manager Office Of General Manager S.E.C.L., Gevra
     Project, Gevra, District Korba (C.G.)
  2. General Public (Whosoever May Concern)
                                                            ----Respondents

For Appellant - Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

10-08-2022

1. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian

Succession Act before the Civil Judge Class-I, Katghora District - Korba

(C.G.) and same was filed on 27.03.2017 and it was registered as C.S.

No. 08/2017. The contention of the Mr. Chaki, learned counsel for the

petitioner is that, matter is pending since 27.03.2017 and petitioner's

evidence was closed on 22.09.2021 and the evidence of the

respondents is yet to be started.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is pending since

2017 and it has not been decided till date therefore an appropriate

direction may be issued to the trial Court to decide the lis pending since

2017 expeditiously.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the evidence of the

petitioner was closed on 22.09.2021 and they will adduced the evidence

if so required.

4. On having considered the submissions and records it would be apt to

direct the learned trial Court to conclude and decide the application filed

under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 expeditiously

preferably within a period of four months.

5. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the concerned Court.

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

   vaishali                                 (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
                                                     Judge