Chattisgarh High Court
Atul Bajaj vs Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal ... on 26 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 531 of 2022
1. Atul Bajaj S/o Shri S.L. Bajaj Aged About 47 Years R/o Marwari Line,
Khaparganj Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Santosh Bajaj S/o Shri Amolakchand Bajaj Aged About 73 Years R/o
Ainthapali Chouck, Sambalpur Oddisha.
3. Amit Bajaj S/o Shri Chandrakumar Bajaj Aged About 49 Years R/o
148, New Randaspeth, Nagpur - 10 - Maharashtra.
4. Sunit Bajaj S/o Shri Sharad Kumar Bajaj Aged About 45 Years R/o
House No. 301, Krishna Kiran Apartment, Vardhman Nagar, Nagpur -
Maharashtra.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust Through - Its Trustee
Shri Kamal Bajaj, S/o Shri Ramniwas Bajaj
2. Chirag Bajaj S/o Shri Kamal Bajaj Aged About 33 Years
3. Ananya Bajaj S/o Shri Govind Bajaj Aged About 32 Years
All residents of Bajaj Bhawan, Marwadi Line, Lajpat Rai Nagar,
Khaparganj, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Registrar Public Trust-Cum- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava,
Advocate.
For Respondents No. 4 and 5 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
26.09.2022
Heard Mr. Anuraga Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government
Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 02.09.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3633 of 2021.
3. The order dated 02.09.2022 reads as follows:
"Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. M.L. Sakat,
Counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent No. 1
and 2.
Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Counsel for the respondent
Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 would submit that
for final disposal of this petition, reply of the
State/respondent No. 1 and 2 is essential.
I have perused the impugned order passed by the Registrar
(Trust) and also gone through other documents annexed
with the petition and reply.
In my considered opinion, reply of the State/ respondent
No. 1 and 2 is not required but State may file reply if they
desire within four days.
List this case for final hearing at motion stage itself on
08.09.2022."
4. On a query as to what happened on 08.09.2022, on which date, the
matter was fixed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Shrivastava submits that
on 08.09.2022, the case was adjourned at the instance of the appellants to
20.09.2022 on which date again the Court granted adjournment at the
instance to the appellants and the case is now fixed on 27.09.2022.
5. Mr. Shrivastava submits that in the attending facts and circumstances,
the learned Single Judge committed error of law in not directing the State to
file an affidavit with regard to jurisdiction of the authorities.
6. Under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division
Bench) Act, 2006, appeal lies before the Division Bench against a judgment
or order. It is also provided that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory
order. By the order under challenge in this appeal, no rights of the parties
have been determined.
7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable.
8. That apart, the learned Single Judge opined that reply of the State-
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not required. However, still the learned Single
Judge had granted four days time to the State to file response, if it so
desired.
9. We see no good ground to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
