HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal No.200 of 2010 ^ APPELLANTS/: (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) 1A. Smt. Bilashini Bai aged about 55 years, W/o Late Girdharilal. 1B. Basant Kumar Pradhan aged about 22 years S/o Late Girdharilal. Both R/o Village Lailunga Tahsil Lailunga District Raigarh. 2. Babulal aged about 54 years, S/o Raghunath Pradhan, 3. Pushplata Gupta, aged about W/o Bairagi Gupta D/o Raghunath Pradhan, 4. Smt. Hemo Bai, W/o Tikeshwar Pradhan.aged about 73 years, 5. Vijay Pradhan aged about 45 years, Tikeshwar, 6. Manoj Pradhan aged about 43 years, S/o Tikeshwar Pradhan 7. Pramod Pradhan, aged about 40 years, S/o Tikeshwar Pradhan 8. Dilip Pradhan, aged about 33 years, S/o Tikeshwar Pradhan, All by Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Lailunga, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh. Versus 1. Anjani aged about 43 years, S/o Khageshwar Pradhan 2. Chitobai aged about 83 years, S/o Khageshwar Pradhan, Both R/o Village and Tahsil Lailunga Raigarh 3. Tapeshwar Pradhan aged about 68 years, S/o Jagganath Pradhan, R/o Near Tilak School, Dilip Rickshaw Garage, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh. 4. Lakhpati Pradhan, aged about 61 years, S/o Jagannath Pradhan, R/o Village Jamgaon, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh EP" 5. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raigarh {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908} Present: No.5. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellants. Mr. H.S. Patel, counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMENT (28-7-2011) 1. This is second appeal against the judgment & deeree dated 13-5-2010 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.15A/2008 affirming the judgment & decree of dismissal of suit filed on behalf of the appellants herein, dated 28-4-2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Gharghoda in Civil Suit No.SA/2008, whereby learned Civil Judge Class- II has dismissed the suit relating to declaration of property as the property received on partition from the respondents herein and for permanent injunction. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgmerats & decrees and records of both the Courts below. 3. As per initial dispute between the parties, application for partition was filed before the Tahsildar, Gharghoda relating to suit property i.e. Khasra No.292/2 area 2 acres (0.809 hectare) situate at Lailunga and vide order Ex.D-1 dated 27-2-87 passed in Revenue Case No.8A-27/83-84, the Tahsildar, Gharghoda has ordered for partition and one acre was allotted to the appellants herein, same was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda in Revenue Appeal No.26A-27/86-87 which was dismissed vide order dated 28-10-87. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur in Revenue Appeal No.51A-27/ 86-87, same was also dismissed vide order dated 6-11-90 for want of prosecution. After aforesaid orders of the revenue courts, the appellants herein have not filed any suit against the respondents herein relating to declaration of Soma aforesaid entire land of two acres till 2004 and after lapse of fourteen years, they have filed the present suit. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Civil Judge Class-11, Gharghoda has dismissed the civil suit which has been affirmed by the judgment impugned. 4. On close scrutiny of evidence, documents, claims and pleadings, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned or any substantial question of law for just decision of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. —- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^