\/ ^f-r ve IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH SECOND APPEAL N0. ^^—o F 2006 APPELLANTS: [Defendants) r'y.j.'?" /' E'..-:'.'fr'i .-•"' v./^^?-'" v/w /^37 ..<? /^ 97 .<^' ^y ^•'^' ^y Vs -1. Smt. Prakash Kaur, widow of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 60 years. ^. Satnam Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Late Gurvachan Singh. 3.. Amarjeet Singh, son of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 30 years. 4,,Smt. Rajinder Kaur, daughter f" _ _ _. . _ . of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, aged about 36 years, wife of Sardar Joginder Singh. No.l to 4 are residents of Dutta S.T.D, Near Panda Mandir, Station Road, Raipur. 5. Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, aged about ^31 years, wife of Shri Arvind Singh, daughter of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, resident of Good luck Boutique, MIG 141, Near Bharat Mata Higher Secondary School, Housing Board Colony, Tatibandh, Raipur. 6. Smt. Jasbir Kaur, aged about ' 28 years, wife of Shri Gurjeet Sii^gh & daughter of Late Sardar Gurvachan Singh, resident of Dutta S.T.D, Near Panda Mandir, Station Road, f Raipur. '.. i '-/ B.A'-. ^ RESPONDENTS [Plaintiffs) A ^v-^ f'^' ^A^ / ^l. Premchand Agarwal, aged about 45 years, son of Late Shyamlal Agarwal, resident of Charoda, Bhilai. p-^2. Hemram Agarwal, aged about 22 years, son of Late Goverdhan Das Agarwal, resident of Lodhipara, Raipur. 3. Madanlal Agarwal, aged about 56 years. 4»Goverdhan Das Agarwal, aged about 52 x&ars^ 5. Purshottam Das, aged about 35 years. 6. Tansukh Das, aged about 30 years. No.3 to 6 all sons of Late Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, resident of Lodhipara, Raipur. wa.s valued at First ^^- Appeal Rs.25000/-, ^. Court fee affixed was Rs.2800/- This^^/appeal is also valued at Rs.25000/-Court fee affixed is 'l Rs.2800/^- \ . _ _ ______„ ^-L __ --_- IPPEAL UNDER SECTIONJ.OO OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated t./ - - . . _ '~-" 17". 1.2006 passed in First Appeal No.lA/2005 between Smt. Prakash Kaur and others Vs. Premchand Agarwal and others by the Court of learned 12th Additional District Judge (Fast Traek Court), Raipur thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.9.20Q5 ^ passed by learned 6th Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur in ' Civil Suit No.308A/2002 between the same parties decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in toto, the appellants wish to prefer fhis appeal on the following facts, grounds and substantial questions of law : - t _\^ •!*y" V.^^ ^^ ^ <^ry L ^:>^.. LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT N0. 5- FURSHOrTAM DASAGARWAL Umesh Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Purshottam Das Agarwal, aged about 29 years. Smt. Kala Bai @ Pushpa Bai, wife of Shri Narayan Agarwal, aged about 36 years. Smt. Lata Kumari, wtfe of Shri Gopal Agarwal, aged about 34 years. Smt. Renu Bai Agarwal, wife of Shri Neelabh Agarwal, aged about 27 years. Kuraari Anjana Agarwal, aged about 17 years, minor through next friend Umesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Purshottam Das Agarwal. No. 2 to 5 are daughters of Late Purshottain Das Agarwal. AU the legal heirs are resident of C/o Mohanlal Laxminarayan Agkrwat, ^Lodhipara, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.) ,»-',<< Ws^ "'^ .—.^ ' ^: <- \ »:":.n-ys5wK*<K: "•MJ K' ^^ c 4. 5. 6. 7. (? LEGAL HEIRS OF DBCEASED RESPONDENT No.3- MADAWLAL AGRAWAL Miikesh Kiimar @ Santosh Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Shri Madan Lal Agarwal aged aboyt 44 years. Jitendra Agarwal, son of Late Shri Madan Lal Agarwal, aged about 36 years. Smt. Manju Agarwal, widow of Late Shri Siiresh Kumar Agarwal (Modi), aged about 50 years. Smt. Ninju Kumari, wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, aged about 46 years. Smt. Sanju Kiunari, wife of Shri Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Agarwal, aged about 48 years. Smt. Seema Kumari, wife of Shri Subhash Agarwal, aged about 42 years. Smt. Pratima Kumari, wife of Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal, aged about 40 years. No. 3 to 7 are daughters of Late Madanlal Agarwal and address of aU fhe legal heirs is Agarwal Medical Stores, G.E. Road, BMY Charoda, District Raipur (OG.) "17? Sml arid Disl coni pasi Civi deci appi factl K!-l/'**lll^ -w aii^WiSr Rl-fi'* "irar 3n^T gRRT ^ -', ^ *<i*«irg)*tra» '3^ T*ii'4id<i, 8>-al'y<i(o, fqdi'yy ^ S-ft C^/^ •W( 200 3II^?T TR?R' (licff^«ll!'ET) e«ii<R^Hfct ail^r SB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kiutnar Mishra, J. 2.08.2010 Shri Kshitiz Sharma, coun Shri G.R. Miri and Shri Elatan No.lto5. Heard on I.A. No.8 for c< setting aside abatement and I.A. deceased, respondents No.3, 4 an| Learned counsel for the a< of respondent No.3 Madan Pumshottan Das are already on may be treated to have been m| Goverdhan Das Agrawal. In connected appeals, F4 similar application has already t| condonation ofdelay, I.A. No.lC) No.9 for bringing legal heirs o| are allowed. (ni<it<n<tii *iMCTf ^f l^^ <i^li$i< ^?3iRlII31^[ el for the appellants. Pusty, counsel for respondents ^ndonation ofdelay, I.A. No.IO for |No.9 for bringing the legal lieirs of |d 5 on record. |)pellaats subiiiits that the legal heirs L|al Agrawal and respondent No.5 |record, therefore, these applications bved for deceased respondent No.4 No. 354/2000 and FA No.i 19/05 ;en allowed, therefore I.A. No.8 for for setting aside abatement and I.A. deceased Goverdhan Das Agrawal »TraOT^^>»ai!°IT5W,.<l;iP]';i,'irCT-—FS.'I47—2/2010—1,00,000. an^FwR-ii* 'cWT Sf^S ^**iitt> -\ L wwn »*<s<!h '3^ '*||<1|?1<1, ®fliy'l<o,fsldl'yij,! J;.A»..6.1/0^.. ^ ^ TS^200 an^l'q^T (1pfg^t?) s«iw<^i^d »n^ The delay is condoned, permitted to correct the memo which the appeal shall I.A. No.7 is application| condoning any bonafide mistakej Learned counsel for the application. I.A. No.7 is dismissed as d Learned counsel for the order granted earlier should be paying rent regularly and is in| vanous nature. Leamed counsel for the al that there is no default of such interim order. On due consideration, it listed along with FA No. 3544 eommencing 16 August, 2010. atfetement ctii<<(CT<<ii ^IFRlf ^f l^zt •(^ii'^i< ^siRiH aii^i is set aside, the appellant is i|)f appeal within seven days, failing stand disnliissed without reference to the court. under section 151 of CPC for atipellaat does not wish to press this (ot pressed. 1'espondent submits tliat the interim 1'acated, because tlie appellant is not Ithe habit of committing default of |>pellant opposing the prayer submits B|ature, which would call for vacating is directed that this appeal shall be /£000 for final hearing in the week Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge »r!aO?( ['3img!T,<|3a;<,iiH-^-FS.'l47—2/20l»—1,00,000. ,%S\ Au»'\, y^'y^