Pratibha Shukla (Died) Through ... vs Virendra Shukla
2022 Latest Caselaw 6540 Chatt

                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                              Order Sheet
                                          SA No. 687 of 2018
           1.A. Rajendra Shankar Shukla S/o Shri Ram Avtar Shukla, aged about 84 years,
           R/o A-50, Amrapali Housing Society, Dumartarai, Raipur (CG).
        1. (A). Smt. Ekta Shukla Wd/o Late Rohit Shukla Aged About 38 Years (LR of Original
           Defendant No. 2), R/o Malviya Road Raipur At Present A - 50, Amrpali Grih Nirman
           Sahkari      Samiti,      Pachpedi        Naka      Raipur         Chhattisgarh.
           2.(B). Ku. Ananya Shukla (Minor), D/o Late Rohit Shikla Aged About 17 Years
           Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ekta Shukla, R/o Malviya Road Raipur At
           Present A - 50, Amrpali Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Pachpedi Naka Raipur
           Chhattisgarh.
        3. Rahul S/o Rajendra Shankar Shukla Aged About 40 Years R/o Malviya Road
           Raipur At Present A - 50, Amrpali Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Pachpedi Naka
           Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Defendants).
                                                                                    ---- Petitioner
                                               Versus
        1. Virendra Shukla S/o Late Ramawtar Shukla Aged About 67 Years R/o Tatibandh
           Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff).
        2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collectorate, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District
           Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2)
                                                                                ---- Respondents

02.11.2022 Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Ravi Maheshawari, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on IA No.3 which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

read with Section 151 of CPC.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the suit

which was filed by the plaintiff seeking for the relief of declaration of title,

permanent injunction and declaring the partition that took place on

13.10.1992 to be null and void was partly allowed to the extent that it was

held that the plaintiff have the right and title over only 9.45 Acres of the land

situated in portion of land in Khasra No.185/1 at Dumartarai, Raipur.

It is the contention of the appellants that the said judgment and decree

by the trial court was subsequently also maintained by the First Appellate Court as well and there is no further appeal made by the plaintiff to the said

two judgments and decrees.

The present is a Second Appeal by the Defendants so far as the right

that has been created in favour of the plaintiff over the 9.45 Acres of land.

The appeal is an admitted appeal. However, pending the appeal it is

contended that the plaintiff have now crossed over that 9.45 Acres of land and

have started encroaching upon the adjacent land.

Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, a strong case for

allowing IA No.3 has been made out.

Accordingly, IA No.3 stands allowed. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is

hereby injuncted from crossing over the 9.45 Acres of land situated in portion

of land in Khasra No.185/1 at Dumartarai, Raipur. The plaintiff is further

restrained from encroaching beyond the aforementioned 9.45 Acres of land till

the final decision of the appeal.

It is also ordered that the plaintiff shall not create any third party right in

between in respect of the suit property also.

List for final hearing at motion stage after two months.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

Inder