Heeralal vs Ramdev
2022 Latest Caselaw 1409 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               WPC No. 1329 of 2022
1. Heeralal S/o Bandhna, Aged About 26 Years
2. Babulal S/o Bandhna, Aged About 34 Years
3. Dhisalal S/o Bandhna Aged About 27 Years
4. Ramesh S/o Mahju Aged About 27 Years
5. Indrajeet S/o Mahju Aged About 25 Years
6. Bhuneshwar S/o Mahju Aged About 18 Years
7. Sukhnath S/o Firu Aged About 56 Years
8. Parsu Ram S/o Firu Aged About 54 Years
9. Suresh Ram S/o Firu Aged About 52 Years
   All by Caste Uraon, R/o Village Komdo, Tahsil And District-Jashpur (C.G.)
                                                                          ---- Petitioners
                                       Versus
1. Ramdev S/o Aghnu, Aged About 60 Years
2. Mandev S/o Aghnu Aged About 50 Years
3. Narendra Ram S/o Late Sani, Aged About 55 Years
4. Bindeshwar Ram S/o Late Sani Aged About 32 Years
5. Gopal S/o Manohar Aged About 32 Years
6. Dadibal S/o Dukhiya Aged About 32 Years
7. Anup Ram S/o Late Bhaiyalal Aged About 30 Years
8. Birbal S/o Siker, Aged About 42 Years
9. Nirmal S/o Siker, Aged About 37 Years Caste
10. Dasai S/o Siker, Aged About 32 Years
11. Mahesh Ram S/o Late Sohan Aged About 36 Years
12. Ganesh Ram S/o Late Sohan Aged About 33 Years
   All by caste Uraon, R/o village Komde, Tahsil and District Jashpur(CG)
13. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.)
14. Tahsildar, Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.)

                                                                        ----Respondents

17/03/2022 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Saxena, counsel for the Petitioners.

Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. G.A. for the State. Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on I.A.No.1/2022, an application for grant of interim relief.

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the private respondents have moved an execution application on the basis of judgment and decree dated 24.7.1978, which was affirmed by the appellate court by judgment dated 04.12.1992. He submits that the application is already time barred and further the execution application has not been submitted before the proper authority i.e. before the Civil Court, therefore, the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 13 and 14 are illegal and unsustainable. He prays for staying the effect and operation of impugned orders Annexures P/4 and P/5 passed by Respondent Nos. 13 and 14.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of interim relief.

On due consideration, I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed. Purely on temporary basis, It is ordered that the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 (Annexure P4) and 13.12.2021 (Annexure P5) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 on payment of P.F. as per rules.

Post this matter after four weeks.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

sunita