Rajesh Jain Vs Ratan Kumar Sharma

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:941

¶3

NAFR

¶4

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.01.08 11:33:44 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CR No. 155 of 2023

¶7

1 - Rajesh Jain S/o Late Shri Dhanya Kumar Jain Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Fauwara Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Ashish Jain S/o Late Shri Dhanya Kumar Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Fauwara Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Rashmi Jain, D/o Late Shri Dhanya Kumar Jain, Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Fauwara Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Nina Jain , D/o Late Shri Dhanya Kumar Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Fauwara Chowk Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Anurag Jain, S/o Late Shri Pannalal Jain, Aged About 56 Years Ward No. 10, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri - Bhatgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Ratan Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Mathur Sharma, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chainpur, Post And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, (Now District Manendragarh - Chirmiri -Bhatagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Now Manendragarh- Chirmiri - Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶16

3 - Additional Collector, Manendrgarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Now ManendragarhChirmiri - Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶17

2

¶18

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Manendragarh Pos And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Now Manendragarh- Chirmiri - Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶19

5 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Now ManendragarhChirmiri - Bhatgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Adv on behalf of Mr. R. K. Pali, Adv.
For respondents No.2 to 5	: Mr. S. K. Puriya, Panel Lawyer.

¶22

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶23

07.01.2025

¶24

This Revision has been filed against the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Manendragrah, District Korea (Now Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bhatgaon) in Civil Suit No.54-A/2022, whereby, after framing the preliminary issues the trial Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation and rejected the objection raised by the plaintiff in this regard.

¶25

Facts of the case, in short, are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the subject land. In the said suit, the petitioner raised an objection that the suit has not been filed within limitation and also raised an objection that the plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the Collector, Manendragarh dated 04.07.2014 for declaring it null and void which is bad in law. However, the trial Court has rejected the said objection. Hence, this petition.

¶26

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at this juncture the trial Court may be directed to decide the said issue after recording the evidence as the same is mixed question of law and facts.

¶27

3

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction also so there is continuous cause of action in the proceeding. She would further submit that the subject land was earlier recorded in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 22.01.2009 and thereby the right was already accrued in favour of the plaintiff, however, by subsequent order the name of the plaintiff was deleted from the land record. Since the plaintiff has already accrued the title over the subject land, the suit was filed well within limitation. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance in the mater of Urvashiben and another Vs. Krihnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, (2019) 13 SCC 372 . However, counsel does not oppose the prayer that the said issue may be decided after recording the evidence.

¶29

Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the prayer made by the petitioner, at this juncture, this Court only observes that the trial Court shall decide the issue of limitation only after adducing the evidence as the said issue is mixed question of law and facts.

¶30

It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶34

Ajay

Rajesh Jain v. Ratan Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Jain v. Ratan Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikram (Died) through Legal Heirs Vs Raman Lal (Died)

Itwara Bai Vs Lekhram

Dharmraj Singh Vs Principal

New Life Health and Education Society Vs Dr. Rakesh Sharma

Vijay Mashrani (Petitioner in Person) Vs Ravi Jain

Gopal @ Bhuru Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh