IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227)No. umé /201o (3.3.) MMii 3EN§€£ 1f Smt. PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS Shanti Bai W/o Chhabalu Sahu, aged about 57 years, R/ o Village Bhirai, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 258nm. Kanti Bai, W/o Guman Singh Sahu, aged about 54 years, R/o Village Parsoda (Armari) Post Mokha, Tahsil Gunderhi, Distt. Durg (C.‘G.) 3./Smt. Shyam Bai, W/o Banshi Lal sahu, aged about 51 years, R/oVillage Potiyadih, Tahsil 85 Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. Smt. Kumari Bai, W/o Kishan Lal sahu, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Perpar, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. Smt. Dokeshwari, Bisahu Ram Sahu, aged about 4O years, R/o Village Danitola (Gurur) Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. Smt. Chitrekha Bai, W/o Puna Ram Sahu, aged W/o :41 J \ _L,/ HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $3: M Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kummr Mishra Writ PetitiOH 1227: No. 4’71 $2010 Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioners. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Pane} Lawyer for the Stato. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE M CGNSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (25.08.2010) Plaintiffs suit for par’tition to the extent of 1/8m share has been decreed by the trial court. During pendency of the first appeal preferred by respondent Raghuvar and deceased Manraldian, the said Manrakhan died leading to an application by Raglillvag‘ before the revenue court for mutation of his name in the suit property, the ‘ present petitioners moved an application before the Fir‘st Appellate Court for a direction to the Tahsildar for staying the proceedings regarding mutation of the name of appellant Raghuvar. (2) The first appellate court has dismissed the said application of the petitioners after observing that since the execution of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has already been stayed i by the first appellate court, even if the mutation proceeds, there shall be no adverse effect on the rights ofthe parties. PETITIONERS : Smt. Shanti Bai anti Versus RE§PGNDENTS : Mamakhan and others AQQearancef ‘ (3) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Raghuvar having himself obtained an interim order before the first appellate couit, he cannot be allowed to proceed with his application for mutation. {4) In the opinion of this court, the observation made by the first appellate court that in View of the interim order passed by it staying the effect, operation and execution of the impugned decree, even if the mutation proceeds, the same shall have no bearing on the rights of the parties, appears to be justified and that the first appellate court has . not committed any error of jurisdiction by rejecting the petitioners application. (5) The impugned order is an interim order passed by the first appellate court during pendency of the first appeal, however looking to the dispute between the parties, it is directed that the first appellate court shall do well to dispose of the first appeal as early; as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of i production of certified copy ofthis order by the petitioners before the first appellate court. (6) With this observation, this petition under article 227 of the Constitution oflndia is disposed of. ‘_ SM f Prashant Kumar Mishral Judge —\ fw