Hanuman Singh Vs C.G.State Power Distribution Company

C.G. State Power Distribution Company Through Executive Engineer (Transmission, Maintenance and Distribution) C.G. State Power Distribution Company, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendants)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G. A.

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Rajani Dubey , Judge

¶18

26.11.2024

¶19

Heard on I. A. No. 02/2017, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

¶20

2 / 4

¶21

FA No. 155 of 2017

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28/11/2016 passed by learned Additional Judge of Additional District Judge Katghora, District Korba passed in Civil Suit No.2B/2014 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/Plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court on this ground that the appellant/plaintiff has not proved this fact that he is father of deceased Chain Singh. The finding of the trial Court is based on Naksha Panchayatnama (Exp. P/3) and Post-mortem report (Exp. P/4) in which the father’s name of deceased Chain Singh is mentioned as late Hanuman Singh, however, in the Ration Card (Exp. P/1A), the name of Hanuman Singh was deleted, and subsequently, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further submits that the learned trial Court did not frame any issue in this regard and at the time of final judgment dealt with the issues framed by the trial Court, dismissed the suit of appellant without affording any opportunity of hearing. Now, the appellant has filed some documents which proves that he is the father of deceased Chain Singh. These documents are certified copies of Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Podikala who has issued a certificate that Hanuman Singh son of Ganga Ram is living person

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

FA No. 155 of 2017

¶26

and deceased Chain Singh was his son. So this application may be allowed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶28

We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No.2-B/2014 against respondent for compensation of death of his son Chain Singh due to electrocution. The learned trial Court framed four issues and in issue No.3, the learned trial Court finds that the father’s name of deceased Chain Singh is mentioned as late Hanuman Singh in Exp. P/3 so the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that he is father of deceased Chain Singh and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

¶30

Now, the appellant filed some documents under Order 41 Rule 27 which shows that appellant Hanuman Singh is father of deceased Chain Singh and he is a living person.

¶31

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and finding recorded by the learned trial Court, this application is allowed . The impugned judgment and decree dated 28/11/2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2014 is set aside.

¶32

The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for deciding the issue No.3 afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties,

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

FA No. 155 of 2017

¶35

to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and also afford opportunity to amend their pleading, if any. The trial Court is at liberty to frame additional issue, if necessary.

¶36

The Registry shall immediately send back the original record to the concerned trial Court for deciding the case on its own merits preferably within a period of six months from the first date of hearing of the case.

¶37

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case and the trial Court is directed to decide the same after due appreciation of the evidence without being influenced by the observation made herein above.

¶38

As the parties are duly represented, they are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 06.01.2025 .

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶42

$. Bhilwar

Hanuman Singh v. C.G.State Power Distribution Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Singh v. C.G.State Power Distribution Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotu Kaser Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuvan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanshi Puri Goswami Vs Nehal Puri Goswami (Minor)

Shoshan Tirkey Vs Union of India

Vishal Bharat Vs Smt. Vandana Bharat