In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the appellant challenged a lower court judgment. The court found that the appellant had died 9-10 years prior to the SPC report. The appeal was allowed to be dismissed by treating it as abated due to the appellant's death without costs.
The appeal was dismissed as abated due to the death of the appellant.
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.
’ V',’ ‘ ‘” u-w‘ v} It k:
umnmmuxgy
\J \
v :73x‘kw‘) , eg‘1 ‘
\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF §$DE€ATURE AT JABALPURWIP)
UNDER SECTION 100 OF Tm CODE OF CIVIL ggPEAL PROCEDURE
| s.A | q (0 . N0. 1997 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Appellant/ nefendent |
Goverdhan alias Brijlal 5/9 Swath. r/a Village x" Bamhni Charbhata Tahsil and district Rajnandgaon. . |
|
| Respondents/ Plaintiffs |
K 1. Hariram. aged about 4o years. " |
|
| Sukluram, aged about 32 YearSo |
||
| ' 3. Dwarkadas. aged about ‘ 28 years. 4. Kedamath. aged about 22 Yég§50 A11 sons of Degisingh. r/o village Bamhni Charbhata, Tah. and district Rajnandgaam |
'1‘ | |
| Respondents/ Defendant ' |
S. Nimal. aged aboat 37. years s/o Devi Singh. r/a Village V Bamhni Charbhata. Tahsil and district Rajnandgaon. 5. Lochanbai. aged aboat 25 e years. wife of Narsingh. r/o Chhuria. Tahsil and _ district Rajnandgaon. |
m i a, |
| 7. State of M.P.’ through the Collector Rajnandgaon. |
||
| Claim in suit: |
Valued at Rs. 600/- |
|
| Claim in First Claim in Secon |
Appeal: Valued at Rs. 1660/- d AppeahValued at\Rs.1600/- |
§7,
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR
W}
Second Appeal No.910 of1997
Goverdhan alias Brijlal
APPELLANT/: (Defendant)
Versus
RESPONDENTS/: 1. Hariram (Plaintiffs) Sukluram Dwarkadas hON\IU'lwKedarnath Nirma! (Defendant)
Dwarkadas
(Defendant)
Lochanbai
State of M.P. (now StateofC.G.)
{AppealunderSection100oftheCodeofCivilProcedure}
Present:
None present for the appellant.
Respondents No.1 & 3 died.
Mr. Virendra Verma, counsel for respondentNo.2.
Mr. Aditya Sharma, Panel LawyerfortheState/respondentNo.7.
Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma,J
JUDGMENT
(2—1-2013)
Soma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal is maintainable when the appellant died prior to the issuance of the SPC report.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Goverdhan alias Brijlal
Hariram
Sukluram
Dwarkadas Sadanand
Nimura Kedarnath
Lochanbai
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
