In Misc. Appeal No.84 of 2014, the High Court of Chhattisgarh declined to admit the appeal, noting it was disposed of as withdrawn by the appellant while reserving liberty to assail the judgment in an appropriate forum.
The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty. Registry directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Misc. Appeal No.84 of 2014
1. Dhruvlal S/o Vishnu Gond Aged About 35 Years
2. Sukhiya D/o Punit Ram Gond Aged About 47 Years
3. Sukhmat D/o Punitram Aged About 45 Years
4. Chamarin W/o Punitram Aged About 75 Years
5. Bisni D/o Punitram Aged About 60 Years
6. Narayan S/o Late Johan Sahu Aged About 50 Years
7. Anand Ram S/o Manohar Sahu Aged About 63 Years
8. Mangtin Bai W/o Sultan Singh Yadav Aged About 52 Years
All are R/o Choubey Bandha, Tah. Rajim, Distt. Raipur C.G., Now Distt. Gariyaband C.G.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Pancho Bai W/o Tetkuram Gond Aged About 65 Years,
2. 2A . Vishnu Ram S/o Bhuneshwar Gond
2F . Minor Bhim Singh S/o Vishnu Gond Minor, Thru- Father Vishnu Gond,
2G . Kisan Bai D/o Vishnu Gond R/o
All are R/o. Village- Murmura, Tah. Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur C.G., Now Distt. Gariyaband C.G.
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Collector, Raipur C.G.
---- Respondents
For appellants : Shri AP Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 2A to 2G: Shri Sudeep Verma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Smt. Shobha Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order On Board
2
20.10.2016
The instant misc. appeal is not yet admitted.
2 . During hearing on admission, learned counsel for the appellants would submits that since this matter is not disposed of by the trial Court upon the preliminary point, Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is not applicable and in furtherance order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code is not attracted, hence the appeal is not maintainable. He prayed that he may be given opportunity to assail judgment dated 26.7.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.9A/10 by the First Additional District Judge, Gariyaband in an appropriate forum.
3 . As prayed, the instant appeal is disposed of as withdrawn reserving afore liberty.
4 . Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order after keeping an authenticated xerox copy of the same on record.
Sd/(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)
JUDGE
Bini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the misc. appeal is maintainable when the trial court has not disposed of the preliminary point regarding applicability of Order 41 Rule 23 and Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhruvlal S/o Vishnu Gond Aged About 35 Years
Sukhiya D/o Punit Ram Gond Aged About 47 Years
Sukhmat D/o Punitram Aged About 45 Years
Chamarin W/o Punitram Aged About 75 Years
Bisni D/o Punitram Aged About 60 Years
Pancho Bai W/o Tetkuram Gond Aged About 65 Years
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
