Nafr High Court
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 2025:CGHC:22570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 466 of 2025 1 - Ghasilal S/o Jeevanlal Aged About 54 Years R/o Reda, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District -Sakti) (Defendant) 2 - Hemprasad S/o Jeevanlal Aged About 51 Years R/o Reda Para Bijani, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) (Defendant) 3 - Laxminarayan S/o Jeevanlal Aged About 48 Years Through Power Off Attorney Holder Hemprasad Aged About 51 S/o Jeevan Lal R/o Reda Para Bijani, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti)(Defendant) 4 - Shri Rang Bobde S/o Sampatram Bobde Aged About 49 Years R/o Saptshringi Apartment Karbala Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Lakhanlal S/o Gopal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti)(Plaintiff No.1) 2 - Manohar Singh S/o Gopal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 3 - Bharat Kumar S/o Setram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 4 - Madan Singh S/o Ganesh Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 5 - Charanmrit Patel S/o Ramlal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.07.18 12:17:58 +0530 Page 2 of 6 6 - Bhuwanlal S/o Anand Prasad Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 7 - Rajkumar S/o Anand Prasad Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 8 - Naresh Chand Patel S/o Late Amar Singh Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 9 - Ramwati W/o Late Amar Singh Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 10 - Chandrabhan S/o Lakhpati Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 11 - Jitendra Patel S/o Lakhpati Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 12 - Prahlad Patel S/o Shantimani Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 13 - Tarachand Patel S/o Shantimani Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 14 - Narendra Kumar Patel S/o Ramkumar Patel (Hariyar) Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 15 - Gaya Prasad S/o Indra Kumar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 16 - Parasmani S/o Indra Kumar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 17 - Brijmohan S/o Ishwari Prasad Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 18 - Ratan Singh S/o Ganeshram Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) Page 3 of 6 19 - Chamar Singh S/o Dayaram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 20 - Rameshwar S/o Parasuram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Saraipali (Chechang), Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Now District Sakti) 21 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir Champa At Present District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the 2nd District Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa (Now Sakti) (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 03/2024 (Lakhanlal & others Vs. Ghasilal & others) by which the appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa and restored the original Civil Suit No. 18-A/2011 before First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa and directed the parties to appear there on 16.04.2025. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the respondents have filed civil suit before learned Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa for declaration of title and permanent injunction valued at Rs. 1200/- mainly contending that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and title holder of the suit property i.e. land bearing Khasra No. 37, area admeasuring 45.91 acres situated at Page 4 of 6 Village- Saraipali (Chechang), Patwari Halka No. 1, Tahsil- Dahra and the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4 be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit property. Earlier the suit was dismissed on 29.10.2018 for want of prosecution and thereafter they moved an application before First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for restoration of the suit which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P/5). Against the said order, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred appeal by filing application under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(n) of the C.P.C. which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 06/2022. The said appeal was partly allowed by the First Additional District Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 10.12.2022 and has directed the trial Court to record the evidence and thereafter pass a well reasoned order on the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. 3. Thereafter, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.11.2023 has rejected the same. Being aggrieved with the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Second District Judge Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa which is registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 03/2024 which has been has been allowed vide order dated 17.03.2025 setting aside the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa and restored the original Civil Suit No. 18-A/2011 before First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa and directed the parties to appear there on 16.04.2025. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, the petitioners/defendants No. 1 to 4 have preferred preferred this petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated Page 5 of 6 17.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that learned 2nd District Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has committed illegality in allowing the appeal filed under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(n) of the C.P.C. without taking note of the fact that it is not visible that all the respondents/plaintiffs or one of the respondents have suffered illness and because of their illness, they could neither contact the counsel nor they could make representation before the Court as such on the false ground they have moved an application and even no medical document was placed on record before the learned trial Court. He would further submit that the respondents/plaintiffs have played hide and seek with the Court, therefore, they are not entitled to get the
Decision
relief and would pray for allowing the writ petition and for quashing the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the Second District Judge Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa has rightly allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025 setting aside the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa which is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. It is not in dispute that the matter was pending before learned Civil Judge Class-II, Dhabra since 2011 and the same has not been reached to its logical end and since 2018 only it is pending for restoration. This Page 6 of 6 shows how the case is pending for restoration before the learned trial Court. Learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal has taken note of the evidence of Madan Singh/respondent No. 4 and Narendra Kumar Patel/ respondents No. 14 who have stated that because of illness, they had gone to Raigarh for treatment and due to which they could not inform the Court and similarly other witnesses have also stated the same. Taking note of the fact, learned Appellate Court has allowed the application and restored the case directing the learned trial Court to proceed afresh from the stage of dismissal. 8. Learned Appellate Court has exercised its discretionary power looking to the long pending of case since 2011 and more than 13 years has already been lapsed therefore, discretionary power which has been exercised by the learned Appellate Court in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to suffer from perversity and illegality, thus, I am of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 9. Since the suit is pending since 2011 and more than 13 years has already been lapsed, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with the law and make an endeavor to conclude the trial within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Bhumika Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge