SMT. MANOHARI DEVI v. Madan Mohan Sharma and eighb others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn wibh aForesaid liberty available under bhe
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn wibh aForesaid liberty available under bhe law. No order as to costs.
Judgment
SMT. MANOHARI DEVI, AGED 85YRS 'ATMARAN WD/0 LATE SHARMA ALL R/0 SAK-I'I, TAHSIL-SAKT1, DISTT. JANJC.:TR-CPIAMPA (C.G.) CHITANYA AGNISHIKHA MAHARAJ R/0 JANJGIK'THANE JANJGIR DISTT. JANJ'GIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) BIHARILAL AQED 68 YEARS S/0 LATE SHiVNARAYAN SHARMA R/0 SECTCR 7 BLOCK-D, HOUSE N0.11, ROUK'KELA 72^ <?>sn-&^ ^. KAMLESH CHANDRA S/0 LATE PRAHLAD RAM SHASTRI R/0 NAYA BA:RADWAR , TAHSIL- NAYA BARADWAR, DIS1T. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) VERSUS'" RESPONDENTS. 1, MADAN MOI-L",N SHARMA,AGE 58YRS PXASNTIFF S/0 LATE ATMARAM SHARMA OCCUP/VTION -ABVOCATE R/0 SAKTI DISTF. JANJGIR-CHAMPA —~~t/- D^ENDENTS /) 2.^ / SMT. ANCFI DEVI SIiARMT' A.GE 65 WD/0 LATE ?$HANKERLAL SHARMA R/0 SAKTI JI^.i.T.JANJGin CHAMPA Contd..2.. ..2.. ASHOK KUMAR, S/0 LATE SHANKERLAL SHARMA R/0 SAKTI DISTT.JANJGIR-CHAMPA 4,, SMT. MUNNIDEVI, AGE 56 YEARS WD/0 GOVIND RAM SHARMA R/0 SAKTI, TAHSIL- SAKTI
DISTT. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) SHYAM SUNDER (DEAD) MUKESH KUMAR S/0 LT.SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA Bj^ FAKIRCHAND S/0 LT.SKYAM SUNDER SHARMA RAVI Pl^KASH S/0 LT.SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA ^Bf] JAGAT NARAYAN S/0 LT.SFF^AM SUNDER SHARMA (L ^S] SMT. SHANTI DEVI WD/0 SKYAM SUNDER SHARMA P./Q ^N0^^ ^(^) -C^llo. j$4U<-i ' ^ DINESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS ^<3VC4i' ^^. ^^^^^ S/0 LATE GOVINDSHARMA '^ ' R/0 SAKTI TAHSIL- SAKTI DISTT. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) ^- PUSHKERLAL, AGED 48 YEARS S/0 BILASRAY AGRAWAL, R/0 SAKTI, TAHSIL- SAKTI, DISTT. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) TAPESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS S/0 LATE GOVIND RAM SHARMA R/0 SAKTI TAHSIL- SAKTI D1STT. JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.)
STATE OF CHHA'mSGARH THROUGH- COLLECTOR JANJQIR DISTT. J7YNJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) Contd ..3.. ^-^f^ ..3.. SECOND APPEALU^AOOOF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal No.361 oF 201 1 APPELLANTS/: (DeFendants) RESPONDENTS/: (PlaindFf) Radheshyam and six others Versus Madan Mohan Sharma and eighb others {Second appeal under Section 1 00 oF the Code oF Civil Procedure} Present: Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate wibh Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate, For the appellants. Mr. Sunil Ofcwani, Advocate For respondent No.1. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer For the State/respondent No.9. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (13-6-2013)
By this second appeal under Section 100 oF the CPC, the appellants have challenged legaliby and proprieby oF the order & decree dabed 29-7-2011 passed by the AdditionalDistricbJudge, Sakti in Civil Appeal No.S-A/2009, whereby the appellate Court has remanded the case under Rule 23 oF Order 41 of the CPC.
AFber arguing For some Ume, leamed Senior Advocabe For bhe appellants seeks to withdraw this second appeal with liberty bo File miscellaneous appeal under sub- rule (u) of Rule 1 of Order 43 oF the CPC.
Operative part
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn wibh aForesaid liberty available under bhe law. No order as to costs.
CertiFied copy oF the order & decree impugned be rebumed to counsel For the appellants on his submitting the duly attested photostat copy oF the same.
5. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 & 2 stand disposed of- Soma T.P. Sharma Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn wibh aForesaid liberty available under bhe
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.