Surendra Sai vs Leelawati
2025 Latest Caselaw 1663 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Surendra Sai vs Leelawati on 12 August, 2025

                                                -1-




                                                           2025:CGHC:40652

                                                                           NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


Digitally signed by
NADIM MOHLE
                                   WP227 No. 231 of 2023


  Surendra Sai S/o Late Dileshwar Sai Aged About 36 Years By Caste Kanwar, Occupation
  Agriculturist, R/o Village Singibahar Patwari Halka No. 03, Tahsil Farsabahar, District
  Jashpur Chhattisgarh.                                                ... Petitioner

                                               versus

  1 - Leelawati D/o Late Mutku Sai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Singibahar
  (Barkaspali) Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

  2 - Vishnu Sai S/o Late Mutku Sai Aged About 52 Years Caste Of Kanwar, Occupation
  Agriculturist, Permanent R/o Village Butkachhar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur
  Chhattisgarh.

  3 - Nanhu Sai S/o Late Mutku Aged About 49 Years Caste Of Kanwar, Occupation
  Agriculturist, Permanent R/o Village Butkachhar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur
  Chhattisgarh.
  4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Mr. Nikhil Sahu on behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P. L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.08.2025

1) In the present case, Civil Suit No. 112A/2011 (Rupan Say @ Cherku Say v. Mutku

Say @ Dhoura Say & Others) was filed, which was dismissed vide judgment and

decree dated 25.11.2014 by the learned Civil Judge Class-1, Kunkuri, District

Jashpur. Against the said judgment and decree, an appeal under Section 96 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with an application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 was preferred.

2) In the said appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 3 of the CPC read with

Section 151 of the CPC was also moved, which was rejected on the ground of

delay vide order dated 13.01.2023 by the learned Additional District Judge,

Kunkuri, District Jashpur, therefore, the instant writ petition filed against the said

order is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner

would be at liberty to avail of the remedy available to him under the law.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim