Dismissed

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. v. Officer Incharge And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2014FA/161/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal from a judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 by the District Judge, Bastar, in Civil Suit No.2-B/2005 where the suit for recovery of compensation was dismissed due to lack of evidence establishing a contractual obligation or wrongful act by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed for failure to prove case, appeal dismissed, parties to bear own costs.

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. Vs Officer Incharge And… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

Page No.

¶2

"^'0'500647481

¶3

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶4

F.A.NO. J <o ? /^007D ^olZ^_

APPELLANTS

RfcAINTIFFS

^'^ 91^ ^ . AVf^^0

^-I
?>^OLl»
^^

Smt. Anju Sahu, Wd/o. Late Trilochan Sahu, aged about 30 years,

¶11

Ku. Brishali Daughter of Late Trilochan. Aged about 7 years (Minor) through natural guardian mother

¶12

Smt. Anju Sahu.

¶13

Ku. Anurakta D/o. Late Trilochan Sahu, aged about 3 years (minor) through natural guardian - mother Smt. Anju Sahu.

¶14

All are resident of near Old Geedam Naka, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

©EFENDANTS

^";

Officer Incharge, C.G. Adho

¶22

Sanrachana Bikas Nigam Unit, Jagdalpur.

¶23

Divisional Manager, C.G. Adho-Sanrachana Bikas

¶24

Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Distt. Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG)

¶25

FIRST APPEALUNDER SECTION ^6 READ WITH ORDER 44 RULE 1 OF THE CFVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

¶26

¶27

i. Valuation of appeal Rs. 20,80,000/ii. Court fee paid - appeal is as indigent person.

¶28

1 ^-
VA ^-.
^
^'

¶29

¶30

HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶31

FirstADpealNo.161 of 2012

¶32

APPELLANTS 1 Snit Anju Sahu Plaintiffs

¶33

2 Ku. Brishali 3 Ku. Anurakta

¶34

Versus

¶35

RESPONDENTS Officer Incharge, C.G. Adho Defendants Sanrachana Bikas Nigam Unit, Jagadalpur and two others.

¶36

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTIO.J 96 READ WltH ORDER 44 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908

¶37

Coram:

¶38

Hon. Shri T.P.Sharma and

¶39

Hon. Shri I.S.Uboweja, JJ.

¶40

PRESENT :-

¶41

Mr. Subhash Yadav, counsel for the appellants.

¶42

Mr. Prateek Sharma with Mr. Suyash Dhar, counsel for respondents

¶43

No. 1 & 2 „

¶44

Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, P.L. for the State.

¶45

JUDGMENT (Passedon 03.12.2014)

¶46

Per T.P.Sharma. J.

¶47

By this appeal under Section 96 read with order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), the appellants are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 passed by the District Judge, Dist. Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.2-B/2005 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of money from the respondents filed on behalf of appellants.

¶48

As per plaint allegations, deceased Trilochan Sahu was working as spashier in the Office of respondent No.1. He died in the Office of

¶49

^^ 7 „'• "\\ / / '^^^:....^-' V ^-€y

¶50

respondent No»1. The appellants have filed a Civil Suit for award of compensation of Rs.20,80,000/-.

¶51

3 . By filing written statement, respondents have denied the adverse allegations and have submitted that Trilochan Sahu has died as a resutt of hanging by committing suicide after office hours.

¶52

After providing an opportunity to the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

¶53

¶54

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record oftrial Court including judgment and decree impugned.

¶55

Both the parties led evidence. In order to substantiate the pleadings appellants were under obligation to establish that deceased died as a result of any act or omission on part of the respondents or were.under obligation to prove the contractual obligation of the respondents for payment of compensation. In absence of such evidence, the Court below is left with no other option except to dismiss the suit. Consequently, by dismissing the suit, the trial Court has not committed any error. We do not find any illegality and infirmity in thejudgment and decree impugned.

¶56

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶57

Parties shall bear their own cost. Advocates' fee, if certified, as per schedule.

¶58

A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶59

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶60

Sd/Jnder Singh Uboweja Judge

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. v. Officer Incharge And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. v. Officer Incharge And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Chand Swarnkar and Ors. Vs Smt. Mular Bai and Others

Arvind Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Avtar Yadav Vs Prabhudayal and Ors.

Laxmi Kiran Mahant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Chandresh Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Verma and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh