Smt.Rukhmani Devi vs Premwati Bai And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3890 Chatt

                                   Page 1 of 2

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   Order Sheet
                               SA No. 520 of 2012
      Smt.Rukhmani Devi, W/o Shanti Lal Luniya, Aged About 58 Years, Cultivator
      of Village- Damgarh, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, R/o Gandhi
      Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil- Mungeli & District- Bilaspur (Now District-Mungeli)
      (C.G.)
                                                                   ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
1.    Premwati Bai, W/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 70 Years
2.    Dhan Singh, S/o Late Kalyan Singh, Aged About 50 Years.
3.    Suneti Bai, D/o Late Kalyan Singh, Aged About 40 Years.
      Respondents No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village- Damgarh, P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil-

Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

4. Sampatiya Bai, D/o Late Kalyan Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Village- Neur Gaon, P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

5. Sati Bai, W/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 65 Years.

6. Tihari, S/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 45 Years.

7. Kanta Bai, D/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 40 Years.

8. Kamla Bai, D/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 43 Years.

9. Samru Bai, D/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 35 Years.

10. Usha Bai, D/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 42 Years.

Respondents No. 5 to 10 are R/o Village- Damgarh, P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

11. Sita Bai, D/o Late Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 35 Years, Village- Amniya, P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

12. Sawnu, S/o Bhaira Dhoba, Aged About 45 Years.

13. Vishnu, S/o Babu Lal Dhoba, Aged About 49 Years.

14. Nanhe Singh, S/o Kalyan Singh Dhoba, Aged About 49 Years.

Respondents No. 12 to 14 are R/o Village- Damgarh, P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

15. State of Chhttisgarh, Through- Collector, Kabirdham (C.G.)

---- Respondents

20.06.2022 Mr. K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.

15. Heard on admission.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, which has been reversed by the learned First Appellate Court by recording perverse finding. He would pray for admitting the instant second appeal by framing substantial question of law by this Court.

The case is arguable and admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff by recording perverse finding or without considering the material already placed on record?"

Also heard on I.A. No. 02, application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C.

On due considering, the same is allowed. Considering the facts, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as exists today with regard to the suit property, till the next date of hearing.

List this case in second week of August, 2022 for final disposal at motion stage.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun