The First Appellate Court in C.G. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC as withdrawn with liberty to file a new, duly constituted appeal due to deficiency in court fees.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a duly constituted appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) Singha Bgnw ‘ FIRST APPEAL NO. 2013
’ APPELLAN/ : Defendant No.1
Ramkrishna S/O Dhansingh Sahu, aged about 50 years, Occupation—Teacher, R/o Village Kanji, Tah. & P.VS. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs
Smt. Dasoda Bai, Wd/o
Rishikesh Sahu, aged about 37 years. about 51 years, S/o
Champalal Jaiswal, R/o Kamptee (Hoe,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
“f-
Defendant No.2
Satendra Kumar, S/o Rishikesh Sahu, aged about 21 years,
Minor Somnath, S/o Rishikesh Sahu aged about 15 years, Through: naturat guardian mother Dasoda Bai Wd/o Rishikesh Sahu.
Smt. _Sumran Bai, Wd/o Dharam Sahu, aged about 65 years, All R/o Village Kanji, P.S. & Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
Indal Das, S/o . Chatur Das Manikpuri, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Suhela, P.S. & Up Tah. Suhela, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
\V"
i kn
MK
@
DefendantNO.3. 6. State of Chhattisgarh,Through: Collector Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) KbpealValued Rs. 1,7S,OOO/for the pu‘rpose of the appeal. Court Feeof Rs. 40/— affixed with the memo of appeal as paid by the plaintiffsbeforethecourtbelow.
FIRST APPEALUNDERSECTION 953(33EOFgVIL
PROCEDURE
EIGHCOUBTOE§ HAT I ISGARHATBILASPQR
Figgt Agggal uo.71 gf2Q13
Ramkrishna AEPELLANT DefendantNo.1
VERSUS
RESPONQENTS 1 Smt. DasodaBai Plaintiffs 2 Satendra Kumar. 3 Minor Somnath 4 Smt. SumranBai ‘D'efendant No.2 5 Indal Das DefendantNo.3 6 State ofChhattisgarh
[FirstAppealunderSection96oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908}
Present:
None for theappeliant. Mr. H.S. Patel,Advocatefortherespondents. .
SB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma,J.
OBDER
(Passedon01.08.201 3)
By this FirstAppealunderSection96oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908 ‘the Code’) the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety (forshort of the judgmentanddecreedated31.10.2012passedbythe2‘“Additional District Judge,BalodaBazarinCivilSuitNo.1*B/2012.
Sd/— T. P. Sharma Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal under Section 96 CPC should be allowed in view of default in court fees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramkrishna
Smt. Dasoda Bai
Satendra Kumar
Dosnath
Sumran Bai
Indal Das
T. P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
