Goverdhan Suryavanshi vs Sudama Suryavanshi
2023 Latest Caselaw 1129 Chatt

                                                      1



                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                               Order Sheet

                                         S.A. No. 561 of 2022
         Goverdhan Suryavanshi S/o Hriday Suryavanshi Aged About 37 Years R/o Vidhyadih
          Tanger Kosir, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                        ---- Appellant
                                                 Versus
        1. Sudama Suryavanshi S/o Malkham Aged About 52 Years R/o Siddh Nagar, Malhar, Ward
           No. 02, Post Malhar, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
        2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    ---- Respondents

22.02.2023 Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate for the State/Respondent No.5.

Heard on admission.

This appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. "Whether finding of the Courts below holding that an agreement to sale dated 02.09.2016 (Ex.P.-1) was executed by defendant No.1- Goverdhan Suryavanshi agreeing to alienate the property in question bearing Khasra No.333/9 admeasuring 0.84 acres to the plaintiff, instead of holding that the same was mortgaged by him for the security of loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which he borrowed from him, is perverse?"

2. Whether finding of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's claim by holding that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract even without framing the issue to this effect, is perverse?

3. Whether finding of the lower appellate Court refusing to accept the additional documentary evidence on record while rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 has materially affected the decision and consequent upon its decree?"

Issue notice to respondent No.1 only on payment of P.F., as per rules.

Learned counsel for the Appellant is directed to supply the substantial questions of

law as framed to the learned counsel for Respondent No.2/State within a period of 15 days

from today.

Also heard on I.A. No.01/2022, an application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC,

1908 for staying the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated

12.08.2022 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.23-

A/2020, pending decision of this appeal.

Issue notice on this application also to the said respondent, as above.

Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that the effect and operation

of the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2022 under appeal passed by First Additional

District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.23-A/2020 shall remain stayed till the next

date of hearing, subject to Appellant's furnishing security amount of Rs.25,000/- before the

concerned executing Court within a period of three months from today for due performance

of the decree ultimately to be passed by this Court.

Post this matter after five weeks for consideration on I.A. No. 01/2022.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Nikita