Smt. Laxmi Bai vs Bhupendra Kumar Bandhi (Bandhey)
2024 Latest Caselaw 634 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Laxmi Bai vs Bhupendra Kumar Bandhi (Bandhey) on 27 June, 2024

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                Order Sheet
                     FA No. 166 of 2023
1. Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey Aged About 50
   Years R/o Railway Station Para, Charmudiya, Tahsil Kurud,
   District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Pingala Baghel D/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey Aged About
   33 Years R/o Village Gatapar, Tahsil And P.S. Abhanpur, District
   Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Ashwani Kumar Baghel S/o Guha Baghel Aged About 42 Years
   R/o Village Gatapar, Tahsil And P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur
   Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Hemendri/hema Kosare D/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey
   Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Gatapar, Tahsil And P.S.
   Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Chhaganlal S/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey Aged About 29 Years
   R/o Railway Stationpara, Charmudiya, Tahsil Kurud, District
   Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
6. Smt. Neha Bharti D/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey Aged About 27
   Years R/o Village Panduka, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband
   Chhattisgarh.
7. Kumari Chandani Bandhey D/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey Aged
   About 21 Years R/o Railway Station Para, Charmudiya, Tahsil
   Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
8. Vikas Kumar Bandhey @ Vikkey S/o Late Ganeshram Bandhey
   Aged About 19 Years R/o Railway Stationpara, Charmudiya,
   Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
9. Smt. Jugbati Bai W/o Kanwalsingh Bandhey Aged About 68
   Years R/o Railway Stationpara, Charmudiya, Tahsil Kurud,
   District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
                                                    ---- Appellants
                            Versus
1. Bhupendra Kumar Bandhi (Bandhey) S/o Late Shri Ganeshram
   Aged About 41 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Stationpara, Kurud,
   Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari, District
   Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
 27-6-2024             Mr. Afaqui Hussain and Mr. Hemant Sahu, Adv. for appellants.
                      Mr. R.S. Patel, Adv. for respondent No. 1/plaintiff.

Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 1/2023, application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that, appellants are in possession of the suit property, but in pursuance of the decree passed by the trial Court, respondent No. 1/plaintiff is interfering in their possession. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff may also alienate the suit property, therefore, effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 9-10-2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 28A/2016 by Upper Distt. Judge, Camp Court, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari be stayed till disposal of instant appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff would submit that appellants/defendants are not in possession of the suit property, rather, respondent No. 1/plaintiff is in possession since last more than 40 years. He further submits that, respondent No. 1 is not trying to alienate the suit property, on the contrary, appellants are trying to disturb the possession of respondent No. 1 over the suit property. Therefore, stay has been granted in favour of respondent No. 1 by the trial Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, it is directed that no third party interest shall be created on suit property till disposal of instant appeal.

IA No. 1/2023 is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Judge

Pathak