Chattisgarh High Court
Tulsi vs Durga Prasad on 12 May, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Civil Revision No.5 of 2021
1. Tulsi, aged 61 years, son of Sodhuram,
2. Chandrika alias Tarachand, aged 54 years, son of Sodhuram,
3. Rajan, aged 52 years, son of Sodhuram,
4. Mangalchand, aged 50 years, son of Sodhuram,
5. Indra, aged 57 years, daughter of Sodhuram,
All above are residents of Champa Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para,
Rani Road, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
6. Sakun Bai Dewangan, aged 66 years, daughter of Sodhuram, wife of
Doman Prasad Dewangan, resident of Village Suretha, Tahsil and
District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
7. Kamla Bai Dewangan, aged 58 years, daughter of Sodhuram, wife of
Dhaneshwar Prasad Dewangan, resident of Village Choriya Sahu,
Mohalla Choriya, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
8. Vimla Bai Dewangan, aged 46 years, daughter of Sodhuram, wife of
Mahadev Dewangan, resident of Village Sothi, Tahsil Sakti, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicants
versus
1. Durga Prasad, aged 35 years, son of Noharsai Dewangan,
2. Ram Kumar, aged 30 years, son of Noharsai,
3. Santosh Kumar, aged 23 years, son of Noharsai,
4. Kumari Nand alias Chorhin, wife of Noharsai,
All above are residents of Fokatpara, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5. Malti Bai, aged 37 years, wife of Dilchand Dewangan, resident of
Barchhapara, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
6. Shanti Bai, aged 33 years, wife of Baraturam Dewangan, resident of
Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
7. Lalit Bai, aged 31 years, wife of Bharatlal Dewangan, resident of Sakti,
Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
8. Narayan Prasad, aged 54 years, son of Dwarpal Dewangan, resident
of Hanuman Chowk, Dewanganpara, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
9. Horilal, aged 52 years, son of Dwarpal Dewangan, resident of Barrier
Chowk, Premchand Bada, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
10. Sushila Bai, aged 55 years, wife of Kamalchand,
2
11. Pappu, aged 35 years, son of Kamalchand,
12. Bali, aged 30 years, son of Kamalchand,
13. Ku. Puja, aged 20 years, daughter of Kamalchand,
No.10 to 13 are residents of near Majhli Talab, across the Railway
Line, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
14. Smt. Rajni Bai, aged 48 years, wife of Kaushal Prasad Dewangan,
daughter of Dwarpal Dewangan, resident of Choriya, Tahsil Champa,
District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
15. Radha Bai, aged 68 years, daughter of Sodhuram Dewangan, resident
of Baigapara, behind Police Station, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
16. Savitri Dewangan, aged 64 years, daughter of Sodhuram Dewangan,
wife of Beniram Dewangan, resident of Near Halwai Chowk, Baloda,
Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicants : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 8 : Shri C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondents No.9 to 16 : None, though notices are served
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
12.5.2022
1. Heard on I.A. No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the instant
revision. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No.1, it is allowed and
delay of 215 days in filing the revision is condoned.
2. Also heard on admission.
3. The instant civil revision has been filed against the order dated
5.3.2020 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Janjgir in
Execution Case No.57 of 2017, whereby the Court below has
rejected the application moved under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
4. Before the Executing Court, vide the aforesaid application under
Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, on the basis of a compromise, it was
prayed that the execution proceeding may be closed on full
satisfaction of the decree holders.
5. In their reply, judgment debtors No.2 to 7 opposed and specifically
pleaded that they have not compromised the case with the decree
holders. Thus, on this, the Court below has rejected the application
under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC.
6. From perusal of the impugned order and other material available, it
appears that as the judgment debtors have made a submission that
they have not made any compromise in the case, the Court below
has rightly rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC.
The impugned order is a reasoned order. I do not find any illegality
or irregularity or perversity in the impugned order.
7. Resultantly, the instant civil revision is dismissed at the stage of
admission itself. The impugned order is affirmed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
JUDGE
Gopal
