Nirmal Kumar Sharma vs Ghanshyam
2023 Latest Caselaw 983 Chatt

                                     1
                                                      MCC No.100 of 2023

                                                                     NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           MCC No.100 of 2023

     1. Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Aged
        About 59 Years R/o Tikrapara Bilaspur, Tahsil And District
        Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                                            ---- Applicant

                                   Versus

     1. Ghanshyam S/o Late Kriparam Suryawanshi Aged About 70
        Years R/o Near Rajeev Gandhi Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur,
        Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

     2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, District - Bilaspur
        (C.G.)

     3. Rajendra Yadav S/o Sadashiv R/o Om Nagar, Near Sailendra
        Apartment, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur
        (C.G.)

                                                         ---- Respondents


For Applicant                      Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1                Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.2          Shri Arjit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
                Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                              Order on Board

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

15-2-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant filed the instant application (MCC) under Section 152 read with Section 153 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the CPC') for clarification/modification of the

MCC No.100 of 2023

decree dated 16-1-2023 which has been passed pursuant to the judgment dated 4-1-2023 rendered by this Court in FA No.168 of 2019 {Ghanshyam Prasad (dead) through LR Nirmal Kumar Sharma v Ghanshyam & Others.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that during pendency of the first appeal the appellant was dispossessed by the respondent No.3 and the finding has been given that the judgment & decree passed in civil suit No.3-A/1970 and the final decree would not be binding.

4. Sections 151, 152 & 153 of the CPC are made for specific purpose to correct the clerical error. When the appellant apparently claiming restitution to restore back his possession, this cannot be further included in the decree by invoking Sections 152 & 153 of the CPC specially when this was not deliberated during the hearing. However, the applicant would be at liberty to avail the remedy as may be available to him under the provisions of law.

5. Accordingly, the present application (MCC) stands disposed of.

                 Sd/-                                        Sd/-

         (Goutam Bhaduri)                         (N.K. Chandravanshi)
               Judge                                       Judge



Gowri