Uttam vs Nemram
2023 Latest Caselaw 137 Chatt

                                                   1


                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet,
                                        SA No. 249 of 2022
   Uttam S/o Satyanand Kolta Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Linjir, Police Station And
   Tahsil Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                           ---- Appellant/Defendant No.1
                                           Versus

1. Nemram S/o Satyanand Aghariya Aged About 65 Years Occupation Agriculture (Plaintiff)
   R/o Village Kanwariha, Police Station And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.)

2. Shivram S/o Laxman Aghariya Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Agriculture (Defendant
   No. 2) R/o Village Kanwariha, Police Station And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.)

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Collector, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendent No. 3)
                                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause title taken from CIS)

06.01.2023 Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ravi Maheshwari, P.L. for the State/respondent 3.

Heard on admission.

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

"1. Whether finding of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's claim for possession and for mesne profits despite dismissal of his counter claim in a suit being Civil Suit No.31-A/2013 (Ex.P.5), "Bishikeshan and others vs. Nemram and others" by 1 st Civil Judge, Class-1, Raigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015, which has attained its finality in so far as present respondent No.1/plaintiff - Nemram is concerned, is perverse ?

2. Whether finding of the Courts below holding that the suit as framed and instituted by the plaintiff for possession and for mesne profits is within a period of limitation, is perverse ?"

Issue notice to respondents No. 1 & 2 only, on payment of P.F. as per

rules.

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

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue notice of this application also to respondents No.1 & 2, as above.

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

operation of the impugned judgment and decree 08.12.2021 passed by the 2 nd

Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Appeal No. 2-A of 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

2 months from today for due performance of the decree ultimately to be passed

by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to supply the substantial

questions of law as framed to the counsel appearing for the State/respondent 3,

within a period of 15 days from today.

Post this matter after 5 weeks for consideration on I.A.No.01/2022.

C.c. as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Anjani