Shrimati Shailbala Tiwari vs Mukesh Agrawal
2025 Latest Caselaw 1764 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Shrimati Shailbala Tiwari vs Mukesh Agrawal on 5 February, 2025

                                                                 1




                                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                        FA No. 20 of 2025
RUKHSAR
BANO
Digitally signed by
RUKHSAR BANO
Date: 2025.02.05
17:00:07 +0530
                      1 - Shrimati Shailbala Tiwari Wd/o Late Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 65
                      Years   R/o    Village-   Narayanpur,     Tehsil-   Nawagarh,     District-     Bemetara,
                      Chhattisgarh. (Defendants)
                      2 - Nimesh Tiwari S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o
                      Village- Narayanpur, Tehsil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                      3 - Shrimati Pragati Tiwari D/o Late Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 38 Years
                      R/o Village- Narayanpur, Tehsil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                      4 - Shrimati Kranti Tiwari D/o Late Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 36 Years
                      R/o Village- Narayanpur, Tehsil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                                   ... Appellants

                                                              versus

                      1 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o Kedarnath Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o Ekta
                      Nagar, Bilha, Tehsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff)
                      2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector- Bemetara, District Bemetara,
                      Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2)                                        ... Respondents

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

Order Sheet

05/02/2025 Mr. Shobhit Koshta, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, counsel for the respondent No.1. Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, P.L. for the State/respondent No.2. Heard.

Admit.

Also heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that execution of agreement to sell by father of appellants/defendants has been clearly denied and signature of their father has also not been proved. He would further submit that the appellants have a good case to get success in this appeal, therefore, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) may be stayed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that since the appellants/defendants are in possession over the suit property, therefore, they are trying to alienate the same.

Having considered the contention of counsel for both the parties, it is directed that if appellants furnish surety of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakh only) to the satisfaction of the concerned executing Court, then, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Civil Suit No.13A/2017 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

It is further directed that no third party interest shall be created by the appellants/defendants in respect of suit property, till the disposal of this appeal.

Call for the record of the concerned trial Court and list the case thereafter.

Sd/-

                                            (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Rukhsar                                                 JUDGE