Chattisgarh High Court
Prashant Sharma vs Smt. Saraswati Dewangan on 9 March, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA No. 138 of 2014
Prashant Sharma, S/o Shivcharan Prasad Sharma, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Ramsagar Para, Raipur, Civil &
Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Saraswati Dewangan, W/o Narendra Dewangan, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Chandrashekhar, Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, Civil & Revenue
District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
with
FA No. 134 of 2013
Prashant Sharma, S/o Late Shivcharan Sharma, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Ramsagar Para, Raipur, Police Station-
Kotwali, Civil & Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Laxmi Narayan Sharma, S/o Gopal Prasad Sharma, Aged About
62 Years, R/o Comfort Heritage, Bhopal, Police Station- Kotali,
Tahsil- Bhopal, Civil & Revenue District- Bhopal (M.P.)
2. Saraswati Dewangan, W/o Narendra Dewangan, R/o In front of
Maa Ambe Mandir, Chandrashekhar Nagar, Ashwani Nagar,
Raipur, Police Station- Purani Basti, Civil & Revenue District-
Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For the appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
& Mr. Keshav Dewangan,
Advocate.
For the respondent in FA No. 138 : Mr. Ravindra Shrama, Advocate.
of 2014 & for respondent No. 2 in
FA No. 134 of 2013
For respondent No. 1 in FA No. : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate.
134 of 2013
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
09.03.2022
1. FA No. 138 of 2014 has been filed being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.
15A/2013, by which the suit for ejectment and arrears or rent
has been decreed by the trial Court.
2. FA No. 134 of 2013 has been filed being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 27.06.2013 passed by First
Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 5A/2008,
by which the suit for specific performance of contract,
declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
3. In pursuance of this Court's order dated 04.03.2022, landlady-
Smt. Saraswati Dewangan and the tenant- Mr. Prashant Sharma
are present before this Court along with their respective counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he has paid
Rs. 1 lac to the owner from whom he intended to purchase the
suit land and the landlady may kindly be directed to be returned
the same.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that only Rs. 25,000/- was paid which was established
before the trial Court during the trial.
6. The landlady and the tenant have agreed to amicably settled
their dispute on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The tenant will vacate the suit land within a period of eight
months from today i.e. 9th March, 2022 (on or before 8th
November, 2022).
(ii) Landlady will pay Rs. 1 lac to the tenant-Mr. Prashant
Sharma in lie of Rs. 1 lac paid by him said to have been
paid by him to the erstwhile owner of the suit land from
whom he intended to purchase the suit land and also give
up her claim of rent.
(iii) The tenant-Mr. Prashant Sharma will not claim any right
over the suit land after the settlement arrived at between
them before this Court today.
7. Be that as it may, considering the understanding between the
landlady and the tenant which is just and proper, FA No. 138 of
2014 is disposed of on the terms and conditions mentioned at
paragraph 6 of this order.
8. However, landlady- Smt. Saraswati Dewangan is directed to
return Rs. 1 lac to the tenant- Mr. Prashant Sharma through
cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order against the suit property from whom he
intended to purchase the suit land as per the agreement arrived
at between them. The tenant is also directed to vacate the suit
land on or before 8th November, 2022.
9. It is made clear that FA No. 134 of 2013 filed by the tenant-Mr.
Prashant Sharma is also disposed of in light of the settlement
arrived at between the parties mentioned at paragraph 6 of this
order.
10. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of.
11. The settlement arrived at between the parties mentioned at
paragraph 6 of this order will be part of the decree.
12. A decree be drawn up accordingly in both the cases separately.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
