Dismissed¶24

Ramdas v. Smt. Kiran Gandhi

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jul 2025FA/89/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; FA No. 89 of 2023; decided 24.7.2025 by Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; appellant/defendant Ramdas son of Suruj Satnami versus respondents including Smt. Kiran Gandhi and others and State of Chhattisgarh; appeal under Section 96 CPC against District Judge, Rajnandgaon judgment and decree dated 23.6.2017 in Civil Suit No.27/A/2012 decreeing Rs.1,40,000/- with 6% interest default clause; appeal dismissed as infructuous on account of out-of-court settlement and satisfaction of decree; no substantive adjudication of merits.

What did the court decide?

Since the matter has been settled between the parties out of Court and the decree has been satisfied (as submitted by the appellant's counsel and conceded by counsel for respondents 1 to 4), the first appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Ramdas Vs Smt. Kiran Gandhi — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:35765

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

FA No. 89 of 2023

¶6

Ramdas Son Of Suruj Satnami, Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village Umarwahi, Post Umarwahi, P.H.No.70, Revenue Circle Khuji, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant/Defendant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Kiran Gandhi Wife Of Late Manik Ghandhi, Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Ward No.4, Sardar Line, Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Sumit, Gandhi, Son Of Late Manik Gandhi, Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Ward No.4, Sardar Line, Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Amit Gandhi Son Of Late Manik Gandhi, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No.4, Sardar Line, Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Smt. Suchit Rathi Wife Of Vijay Rathi, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Shakuntala Kunj, Rishabh Green City, Infront Of Mahesh Colony, Pulgaon, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collectors, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.5/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer

¶16

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.25 11:10:42 +0530

¶19

¶20

24.7.2025

¶21

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.6.2017 (Annexure-A/1) passed by District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No.27/A/2012, whereby decree of Rs.1,40,000/- has been granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, which has been directed to be paid by the appellant/defendant within two months, otherwise interest @ 6% per annum shall be paid from the date of judgment till its realization.

¶22

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the matter has been settled between the parties out of Court and decree has been satisfied by the appellant.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 also conceded that decree has been satisfied.

¶24

4. In view of the above, this first appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Bini