Deepak Kumar Sinha vs Smt. Sheshkumari
2022 Latest Caselaw 6604 Chatt

                                            1


                                                                               NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   SA No. 174 of 2017

         Deepak Kumar Sinha S/o Late Shri Tukaram Sinha, Aged About 65
          Years R/o Jodhpur Ward Sorid Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District
          Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ................Defendant, Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ---- Appellant
                                        Versus
        1. Smt. Sheshkumari (Died) .... Deleted, Through : Lrs.
             1A. Laxmikant Gajendra, S/o. Late Shri Chandrashekar Gajendra,
             Aged About 48 Years R/o Behind MMI Hospital, Quarter No. 11,
             Shichai Colony, Lalpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
             1B. Shrikant Gajendra, S/o. Late Shri Chandrashekar Gajendra,
             Aged About 45 Years R/o Soridnagar, Jodhpur Ward, Dhamtari,
             Chhattisgarh
        2. The    Collector,    Dhamtari,     Collectorate Office,         Dhamtari,
           Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant No.2, District :          Dhamtari,
           Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Respondent

     For Appellant                :         Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
     For Respondent No.1(a) & (b) :         Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
     For State                    :         Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer


                          Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                   Order on Board

04/11/2022

1. Heard on I.A. No.2, which is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of

the CPC. Also heard on I.A. No.3, which is an application under

Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC supported with their affidavits.

2. The two I.As. have been filed in the light of the death of the plaintiff

(respondent No.1) Smt. Sheshkumari. The proposed legal heirs of

the respondent No.1-Smt. Sheshkumari namely Laxmikant Gajendra

and Shrikant Gajendra are present before this Court.

3. The counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant along with the

defendant is also present before this Court. The counsel for the

respondents does not oppose the two I.As. Accordingly, the same

stands allowed. Let necessary amendment and corrections be

carried out during the course of the day itself.

4. The instant Second Appeal is one which has been preferred by the

defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal

i.e. Civil Appeal No. 347/2013 decided on 21.02.2017 by the

Additional District Judge, Dhamtari. Vide the said judgment and

decree, the First Appellate Court has affirming the judgment and

decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Kurud in Civil Suit No.

325A/2012 has dismissed the First Appeal preferred by the

defendant. The suit which stood allowed and decreed in favour of the

plaintiff was the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and

possession of the half of the share in the suit property.

5. Pending the dispute before this Court, the parties to the dispute have

since amicably settled the dispute and have moved an I.A. No.2 i.e.

an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for disposal of the

present Second Appeal in terms of the settlement and compromise

arrived at between the parties. In terms of the settlement the

respondent No.1/plaintiff has agreed for relinquishment of her share

in the suit property, which already stands recorded in the name of

the appellant/defendant-Deepak Kumar Sinha. The legal heirs of the

deceased/plaintiff (decree holder) present before the Court make a

categorical statement affirming the contents of the application under

Order 23 Rule 3 that they have voluntarily relinquished their claim in

the suit property over which they had a decree in their favour. The

legal heirs of the decree holder i.e. the present respondents No.1(a)

& (b) further make a statement that as a consequence of the

aforesaid settlement and compromise, they shall not any further

make any claim of right and title over the suit property based upon

the judgment and decree that was passed in their favour by the trial

Court and which also stood affirmed by the First Appellate Court

dated 05.08.2013 and 21.02.2017 respectively.

6. In view of the said statement made by the parties personally present

before the Court, the present Second Appeal accordingly stands

disposed of. The appeal stands accordingly decided in terms of the

settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. The Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly. Let the

conditions in paragraphs No. 3 to 6 of the application under Order 23

Rule 3 be made part of the decree.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved