A single bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a second appeal summarily. The court observed that the appellants were not parties to the underlying suit. Despite their claim of being leaseholders, the court held they lacked standing.
The second appeal and connected L.IAs were disposed of without costs against the appellants.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHIIATTISGARHs A No M 5 @20 0
SECOND APPEAL U/s 100 OF C P C/¢w APPELLANTS/POPOSEDR x : 1. Suslhi Kumar Gupta , aged 26 years " (NOTPARTY IN LOWER S/o. Shyam Sunder Gupta, COURTS) 2 . SR. Yadav, aged 32 years
g
i
Vill. Namana Kala, RS. & Tah.
Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
:“1‘
Through The Collector, Sarguja
«”2: The Seceretary
State of Chhattisagarh£aipur C.G.
/ 3. ' a
Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.)
Ambikapun Sarguja (C‘G.)
RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF
Rfo. Vill. Namanakala, Tah. & RS.
Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.)
‘ my
o
”()v”
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11092002 PASSED IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 19-A/2002 BY THE SECOND ADDITIONALDISTRICT JUDGE AMBIKAPUR (SARGUJA)
2‘”
Hl§H COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH. BILASPUR
Second Aggeal No.452 of 2002 APPELLANTS/z 1. Sushil Kumar Gupta (Proposed) (Not party in lower 2. S.R. Yadav Courts) 3. Ramgulab Thakur Versus RESPONDENTS/: 1. State of Chhattisgarh (Defendants) 2. The Secretary Revenue Department 3. The Collector 4. The Nazul Officer 5. The Sub Divisional Ofncer 6. The Tahsilclar (Plaintiff) 7. lshwar Chand {SecondappealunderSection 100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908}
Present:
Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 to 6.
Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J
ORDER
(4-9—2014)
passedbythe2”"Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.19-A/ 2002 reversing the judgment & decree dated 19-1—1998 passed by the 3” Civil Judge Class-ll, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.216-A/1 990.
1
2W V/ PageZo
S.A.No‘452/2002
in possession of the appellants herein, they are lease holders of the suit property, therefore, they are interested party and present appeal is competent at their instances
against Ram or against the appellants herein, therefore, they are not interested party in the present appeal. However, they may take appropriate defence if the decree in question is executed, in execution proceeding or if so advised by a separate suit.
costs.
My” 3d]Ty.sham‘a Jadge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed by the appellants who were not parties to the original suit is maintainable.
Sushil Kumar Gupta
S.R. Yadav
Ramgulab Thakur
State of Chhattisgarh
Secretary, Revenue Department
Ishwar Chand
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
