Dismissed

Thakur Ram Died , Budhram and Ors. v. Babulal and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jan 2016REVP/128/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a review petition filed under Section 114 CPC. The applicants challenged an order that dismissed their application for condonation of delay and a maintenance of challenge petition due to time bar. The Court held no valid grounds for review existed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as not maintainable; no order as to costs.

Thakur Ram Died , Budhram and Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

REVP No. 128 of 2015

¶5

Thakur Ram S/o Ravi ( Died ),

¶6

2. (a) Budhram S/o Chaitram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Tilgi, Post Chikhli, Thana & Tahsil Pusaur, District Revenue And Civil Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

2 . (b) Sudhu Ram Aged about 35 Years S/o Chaitram, R/o Village Tilgi, Post Chikhli, Thana & Tahsil Pusaur, District Revenue And Civil Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

2 . (c) Ujradhar Aged about 50 Years S/o Dharmu R/o Village Tilgi, Post Chikhli, Thana & Tahsil Pusaur, District Revenue And Civil Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

2 . (d) Smt. Rupni Bai Aged about 40 Years D/o Chaitram, Wd/o Jakliha, R/o Village Jaikela, Thana & Tahsil Pusaur, District Revenue And Civil Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

2 . (e) Smt. Nandani Bai Aged about 30 Years D/o Chaitram, Wd/o Jogiram, R/o Village Navapara, Thana And Tahsil Dabhra, District Revenue And Civil Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

3. (a) Sadhmati Wd/o Madhu, Aged About 60 Years

¶12

3 . (b) Milap Aged about 39 Years S/o Madhu,

¶13

3 . (c) Milantin Aged about 36 Years D/o Madhu,

¶14

3 . (d) Bulantin Aged about 32 Years D/o Madhu,

¶15

Gulab S/o Paitu Ram, Aged About 42 Years

¶16

Musammat Tulsimati Wd/o Paitu, Aged About 69 Years

¶17

All R/o Village Kalma, Thana And Tahsil Dabhra, District Revenue And Civil Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶18

---- Applicants

¶19

Versus

¶20

Babulal s/o Jagdish aged 40 years.

¶21

Ram Prasad S/o Pilku (Died) R/o Village Kalma Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (CG)

¶22

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir, District (Revenue & Civil) Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶23

¶24

----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For applicants : Shri M.A. Latif Rahman, Advocate For Respondent 3/State : Ms. M. Asha, PL None for respondent 1 though served. Respondent 2 is not noticed.

¶25

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI Order

¶26

12/01/2016

¶27

Heard on admission.

¶28

The facts in brief are that the applicants/ appellants had filed Second Appeal No.229/2003 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC) against the decree and judgment dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti in First Appeal No.71-A/99. The said Second Appeal was dismissed as per peremptory order dated 11.7.2014. Thereafter, on behalf of the applicants MCC No.294/2015 has been preferred. As the same was barred by limitation of 186 days, on 3.7.2015 this Court dismissed I.A.No.1/2015 for condonation of delay. Consequently, also dismissed the MCC as not maintainable. After the order applicants have filed the instant Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review the order passed by this Court on 3.7.2015 and it is further prayed that Second Appeal No. 229/2003 be restored and the same may be heard on its merits.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicants has prayed that as they were not having knowledge of the dismissal of above Second Appeal on a peremptory order, hence, they have preferred the MCC No.294/2015 for restoration along with an application to condone the delay of 186 days. It is further submitted that as the Second Appeal has not been heard on its

¶30

¶31

merits, a lenient view could have been taken by the Court by awarding some cost on them for the delay and the matter would have been heard on its merits. Hence it is prayed that as the grounds are taken in the instant review petition, the order passed by this Court on 3.7.2015 be quashed. Further prayed that Second Appeal No.229/2003 may be restored for final hearing.

¶32

After admitting the instant review petition for consideration, for the purposes of appreciation regarding the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants, the grounds taken in the petition and record are perused.

¶33

As per settled law scope for review under Section 114 of the CPC is of a very limited nature. After perusal of the order passed on 3.7.2015, it appears that after hearing at length, this Court has passed the order by dismissing the said MCC as the delay is not satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the MCC is also dismissed as not maintainable.

¶34

On due consideration of the grounds taken in the instant review petition also as submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants, in the considered view of this Court, the applicants have not succeeded to demonstrate any ground for review which can be exercised by admitting the instant review petition for its hearing.

¶35

Consequently, the review petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶36

No order as to cost.

¶37

Sd/

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)

¶40

sunita

¶41

Thakur Ram Died , Budhram and Ors. v. Babulal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Ram Died , Budhram and Ors. v. Babulal 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

Mahendra Kumar Waghela Vs Smt. Rekha Rathore and Ors.

Sameer Shukla Vs Jhamman Shukla

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Smt. Madhuri Mishra

Smt. Vibha Verma Vs Sandeep Kumar Awsariya

Smt. Shyambala Vs Kamal Kishore Modi

M/s Shaw Valesh Traders And Company Limited Vs M/s Shakti Traders Migd 29