Chattisgarh High Court
Albert vs Dr. Manmohan Albert Das on 23 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 90 of 2022
Albert S/o Late Aijik Isai, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Railway
Colony, Railway Station, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Manmohan Albert Das S/o Late Joseph Charles
Das, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Magarpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil
and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. Subhashini @ Baby W/o Momin D/o Grace Mary, R/o
Loco Kholi, Near Durg Mandir, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Ms. Karuna Masih, Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
23.02.2022
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-
"10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records
pertaining to the case of the petitioner
from the possession of the respondents
for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to issue appropriate writ by
directing the court below to decide the
civil suit no.510-A/2005 pending before
the learned 1st Civil Judge Class-I,
Bilaspur (C.G.)
10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which
this Hon'ble Court may think proper in
view of the facts and circumstances of
the case may also kindly be granted."
2. Ms. Karuna Masih, learned counsel for petitioner would
submit that respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit in the
year 2005. Judgment and decree of trial Court was put to
challenge in first appeal before Second Additional District
Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.40-A/2011. First Appellate
Court remanded back the case to trial Court vide judgment
and decree dated 18.07.2012. The order of remand was
challenged by petitioner under the provisions of Order 43
Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the
CPC'). Miscellaneous appeal filed under Order 43 of CPC
was allowed vide judgment dated 04.03.2021 and first appeal
is restored to its original number. Further, there was a
direction for appearance of parties before First Appellate
Court on 08.04.2021 and to decide the appeal as soon as
possible, but there is no satisfactory progress in first appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also
perused the documents along with writ petition.
4. Petitioner has only filed a copy of judgment of Miscellaneous
Appeal No.73 of 2012 dated 04.03.2021 whereby first appeal
was restored to its original number. Petitioner has not filed
copies of order-sheet of First Appellate Court to appreciate
the submission of counsel for petitioner that there is no
satisfactory progress in First Appeal proceedings. Even in
relief clause, petitioner has sought for a direction to Court
below to decide Civil Suit bearing No.510-A/2005. Civil suit is
not pending, but it is first appeal, which is pending before
First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.40-A/2011.
5. In view of aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any
merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Yogesh
