Chattisgarh High Court
Bashir Mohammed Died Through Lrs vs Mohammed Saeed Died Thourgh Lrs on 5 January, 2023
Page 1 of 6
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCC No 6 of 2023
Bashir Mohammed S/o. Sheikh Daud @ Daddu, Mulslim, R/o
Chantidih, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Since deceased through legal
representatives).
1(a). Mohammed Vakil, aged about 42 years.
1(b). Mohammed Shakil @ Sameer, aged about 48 years.
Both sons of Late Bashir Mohammed, R/o Chantidih, Tahsil &
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Appellants/plaintiffs
Versus
1. Mohammed Saeed, S/o Mohammed Saeed, Caste Muslim (Since
deceased through legal representatives) -
Defendant No.1
1(a). Mohammed Saleem, aged about 47 years.
1(b). Mohammed Kaleem, aged about 40 years.
Both sons of Late Mohammed Saeed.
1(c). Salma Begam, D/o Late Mohd. Saeed, aged about 35 years.
1(a) to 1(c) all R/o Chantidih, Beside Science College, Tehsil and
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
LRs of defendant No.1
2. Qadar Mohammed @ Kallu, S/o Sheikh Daddu @ Daud, R/o
Chantidih, Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.2
3. State of Chhattisgarh, through- Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.3
4. Rafiq Ahmed, S/o Mohmmed Siddiqi, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Tarbahar, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.6
5. Sher Wahid, S/o Mohammed Siddiqi, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Jabalpur, District- Jabalpur (M.P.)
Defendant No.7
6. Abdul Majeed, aged about 39 years, S/o Mohammed Siddiqui, R/o
Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) (Since deceased through Legal
Representatives)
Defendant No.8
6(a). Jahida Begum, aged about 65 years, Wd/o. Late Abdul
Majeed.
Page 2 of 6
6(b). Sheikh Aziz, S/o Late Abdul Majeed, Aged About 45 Years,
6(c). Saravat Jaho, D/o Late Abdul Majeed, Aged About 43 Years.
6 (d). Sheikh Firoz, S/o Late Abdul Majeed Aged About 41 Years.
6(e). Sheikh Parvez, S/o Abdul Majeed, Aged About 39 Years
Respondent No. 6(a) to 6(e) all are R/o Bhilai, Tehsil & District-
Durg (C.G.)
LRs of defendant No.8
7. Smt. Kulsum Begam, W/o Mohammed Yusuf, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Karbala Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.9
8. Smt. Tashkin Akhtar, W/o B.N. Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Rajendra Nagar, Bilapsur (C.G.)
Defendant No.10
9. Shamigul Kalam @ Shamigul, W/o Firoz Khan, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Karbala Chowk, Tehsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.11
10. Sardar Joginder Singh, S/o Sardar Inder Singh, Caste Punjabi,
aged about 50 years, R/o Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (since
deceased through Legal Representatives)
Defendant No.12
10(a). Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, aged about 70 years, W/o Late Joginder
Singh Tuteja.
10(b). Harpeet Singh Tuteja, S/o Late Joginder Singh Tuteja, Aged
About 40.
10(c). Sumit Pal Tuteja, S/o Late Joginder Singh Tuteja, Aged
About 25 Years.
10(d). Rinki Singh Tuteja, D/o Late Joginder Singh Tuteja, Aged
About 32 Years.
LRs of Defendant No.12
Respondents No. 10(b) to 10(d) daughters and son of Late
Joginder Singh Tuteja
All R/o Sangeet Mahavidyalaya Street, Tikarapara, Bilaspur, Tehsil
& District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
11. Babulal, S/o Banshidhar Agrawal, R/o Chirmiri, Tehsil-
Manendragarh, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
Defendant No.13
12. Smt. Jamuna Bai, D/o Umarlal Agrawal, R/o Chirmiri, Tehsil-
Manendragarh, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
Defendant No.14
13. Afzal Majeed Committee, through Mutawalli, Afzal Majeed
Committee, Chantidih, Tehsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.15
14. Radheshyam Saraf, S/o Lakhanlal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Subhash Nagar, Godpara, Tehsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Defendant No.16
15. Mohammed Zameer, Aged About 38 Years.
16. Shakeela Bano, Aged About 46 Years.
17. Akeela Bano, Aged About 40 Years.
18. Mohammed Akeel @ Babuji, Aged About 45 Years missing for 20
years.
Nos. 15 to 18 are sons and daughters of Late Bashir Mohammed,
R/o Chantidih Tehsil and District- Bilaspur (CG).
(Respondents No. 15 to 18 are Lrs. of original plaintiff)
(Note: Defendants 4 and 5, since deceased, hence deleted before
the lower appellate court).
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. M.D. Sharma and Mr. Aman
Sharma, Advocates.
For Res. No. 1(a), (b) & (c) : Mr. Ravish Chandra Agrawal, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta,
Advocate.
For Resp. No. 10 : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate.
For Res. No. 11 & 12 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board.
5-1-2023
1. Today the instant MCC has been filed for correction in paragraph
15 of the judgment dated 2-1-2023 passed by this Court in
Second Appeal No 448 of 2014 (Bashir Mohammed died through
Lrs and others vs. Mohammed Saeed died through Lrs and others).
2. Perused the judgment passed by this court on 2-1-2023 in Second
Appeal No 448 of 2014 wherein para 15 reads as under:
"15. Learned trial court after appreciation of
the evidence, material on record has
recorded a finding that the plaintiff is unable
to prove issue No.1, 6 to 9 in negative
against the plaintiff. Learned trial court while
deciding issue No. 2 has recorded a finding
that the plaintiff is unable to prove the fact
that the suit property was purchased by his
father in the name of Mohammad Sharif and
while deciding issue No.3, the trial court has
recorded a finding that Mohammad Sharif
was the owner of the suit property. While
deciding issue No.5 whether present suit is
not maintainable because of res judicata of
civil suit No 79A/72, the learned trial court
has recorded a finding that both parties
have given consent that principle of res
judicata is not applicable in the present facts
and circumstances of the case. Learned
trial court has also recorded a finding
that the application of Section 11 of CPC
is the subject matter and the parties and
competency of the court and finality of
the judgment should exist., but in the
present case, none of these facts is not
available, therefore, principle of res
judicata is not applicable".
3. In the last nine lines of the aforesaid para 15 of the judgment there
are some typographical errors which require to be corrected.
Accordingly, the same is corrected which reads as under.
"15. Learned trial court after appreciation of
the evidence, material on record has
recorded a finding that the plaintiff is
unable to prove issue No.1, 6 to 9 in
negative against the plaintiff. Learned trial
court while deciding issue No. 2 has
recorded a finding that the plaintiff is
unable to prove the fact that the suit
property was purchased by his father in the
name of Mohammad Sharif and while
deciding issue No.3, the trial court has
recorded a finding that Mohammad Sharif
was the owner of the suit property. While
deciding issue No.5 whether present suit is
not maintainable because of res judicata of
civil suit No 79A/72, the learned trial court
has recorded a finding that both parties
have given consent that principle of res
judicata is not applicable in the present
facts and circumstances of the case.
"Learned trial court has also recorded a
finding that for application of Section
11 of CPC, the subject matter and the
parties should be similar, competency
of the court and finality of the judgment
should exist., but in the present case,
none of the facts is available, therefore,
principle of res judicata is not
applicable".
4. The rest of the judgment passed in Second Appeal No 448 of 2014
on 2-1-2023 shall remain intact.
5. Accordingly, the instant MCC stands disposed of. A copy of this
order be retained in the original file of Second Appeal No. 448 of 2014.
6. NIC is directed to delete the earlier uploaded judgment passed in
Second Appeal No. 448 of 2014 on 2-1-2023 from the website and
after deleting the same, they shall upload the judgment passed in
Second Appeal No. 448 of 2014 decided on 2-1-2023 along with order
dated 5-1-2023 passed in M.C.C.No 6 of 2023.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
