Walson Vs (Died), v. P. Rai, Through Legal Heir

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:45229

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 196 of 2017

¶6

1 - Walson S/o Rakhman, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Pendra Road Teh. Pendra Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - (Died), Jhapo Bai, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-032024 And 11-06-2024.

¶8

2.1 - (A) Sunita Otti D/o Valson Otti Aged About 34 Years R/o New Bus Stand Pendra, Tehsil Pendra, District Pendra - Gaurela - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Appellants.

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - (Died), V. P. Rai, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-032024 And 11-06-2024.

¶11

1.1 - (A) Smt. Kiran Jaiswal W/o Shri Kamta Jaiswal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village - Salka, Tah. Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶12

1.2 - (B) Smt. Jyotsana Rai W/o Shri Umashankar Rai Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nagpur, Tah. And District Manendragarh (C.G.).

¶13

1.3 - (C) Suresh Kumar Rai S/o Late V.P. Rai Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Rumga, Tah. Marwahi, District Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.).

¶14

1.4 - (D) Mukesh Kumar Rai S/o Late V.P. Rai Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Raumga, Tah. Marwahi, District Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.)

¶15

1.5 - (E) Smt. Sandhya Jaiswal W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sarai Tah. Sarai, District Singrouli (M.P.) ... Respondents

¶16

For appellants. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

¶17

2

¶18

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

04/09/2025

¶21

The appellants/defendants’ Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur whereby the learned First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant/tenant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21-32016 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 07-A/2002 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been allowed.

¶22

This appeal is still yet to be admitted.

¶23

The appellants/tenants are enjoying the benefit of interim order dated 29-32017 passed by this Court and more than eight years have already been lapsed,even without admission of the appeal.

¶24

The record of the cat and decree, the defendant had preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was partly allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court and thereafter again the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-3-2016 has decreed the suit directing the defendant/tenant to vacate the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff within a period of two months against which an appeal was preferred by the appellant/tenant which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 20-2-2017. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal.

¶25

This Court vide order dated 22-8-2025 has directed the parties to remain present before this Court for settling the dispute on 29-8-2025. On 29-82025 when this Court had taken up the matter, the appellants could not appear before this Court because of their personal reasons, therefore, the

¶26

3

¶27

matter is taken up today. Today Ms. Sunita who is daughter being legal representative of deceased appellant Walson is present before this Court along with her Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav and would submit that if she will be allowed to remain in the rented house of the respondent/defendant for about a year, then she will vacate the rented house after completion of one year from today.

¶28

Learned counsel for defendant/landlord has some reservations, but after persuasion he has also agreed to the proposal made by the appellant.

¶29

Considering this aspect of the matter, it is directed that the appellants/tenants shall vacate the possession of the suit property of the respondents/defendants within a period of one year from today ie., 3-9-2026 without even filing of any execution proceeding by the landlord before the Executing Court.

¶30

In view of the undertaking given by this Court, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court is modified to the extent that instead of two months’ time, one year time from today is granted to the appellant/tenant to vacate the possession of the suit property and remaining part of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court shall remain in tact.

¶31