Dr. Smt. Manju Lata Mishra vs Mu. Padma Padmani And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3220 Chatt

                                                   1

                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet
                                       SA No. 356 of 2014
               Dr. Smt. Manjulata Mishra Versus Mu. Padma Padmani and Anr.



04.05.2022         Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the Appellants.

                   Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahre, P. L. for the State.

                   Heard on admission.

                   The appellant has preferred the instant Second Appeal assailing the judgment
             and decree dated 15.05.1014 passed by the learned Second Additional District
             Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 20A/2012 and Judgment &
             decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Bastar at
             Jagdalpur (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 36A/2005.

                   Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that she was for the first time
             came to know about the illegal possession of the defendant No. 1 in the year 1992
             and thereafter she has filed a suit before Civil Judge Bastar at Jagdalpur on
             10.05.99. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit by recording a finding that
             the suit is barred by limitation. Against the said suit she has preferred an appeal
             which was also dismissed by the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Bastar at
             Jagdalpur by recording a finding that the suit has been filed on 10.05.1999 whereas
             the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property from 1978 to 10.05.1999,
             therefore, as per article 65 of the Limitation Act is beyond the period of 12 years
             accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. In the instant case the plaintiff has pleaded
             in paragraph 11 that in the year 1992 he has assured to vacate the suit premises
             within one month.

                   The appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of
                                             2

    law:-

             (1)             "Whether the learned Court below was justified in recording
                      a finding that the suit was barred by limitation ignoring the
                      provisions of article 65 of the Limitation act 1963, ignoring the
                      pleadings that the defendant was on permissive possession of the
                      suit property?"



             Issue notice to the respondent No. 1 along with a copy of this order on

payment of process fee by ordinary mode as well as by registered post. P. F. be paid within 10 days.

List this case in the 3rd week of July, 2022 for final hearing at motion hearing stage.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Amita