T w ^ o'- ^a: COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR" S!nflie_Bench : Hon'ble Shri DJiip Raosaheb Deshmukh^J, . Second of 2007 A00el!ant PMntjff Defendaots versus 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. Deepchand,. S/o Ranuia! Jaln, age about 60 years, Occupation - Buslness, R7o itwaree Bajar, Dhamtari, Distt. - Dhamtari (C.G.) Ramhu, S/o Bhauram Rawat, age 45 years, R/o Pachripara, Balod, Distt Durg (C.G.) Punjtram, S/o Bhauram Rawat, age 42 years Babla, S/o Bhaurarn Rawat, age about35years Madan, S/o Bhauram Rawat.age about 30 years Aiakhram, S/o Bhuram' Rawat, age about25years Dasoda Bai, W7o ' Bhauram Rawat, age about 60 years Respondents No.2 to 6 was PJo ram Ratanbandha, Tahsii & Distt.: Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Coilector, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) S.econd under Sectlon 1SO ofthe Code of CIvl! Procedure Present: Snri Yogesh Pandey, counse! for the -appeiiant. Shri P.R.Patankar, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondent No.7. (Passed on thls 04th day of August, 2008) on admlssion. (2) The appeiiant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and 31-10-2006 passed in Clvil Appea) No.72-A/2004 by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, whereby the judgment and z.- 30-08-2002 passed in Civi! Suit No.50-A/f2002 by the lind Givil •Judge Ciass-i, Dhamtari, whereby the sult disrnissed, was affirmed, (3) The suit for of titie' and recovery' of possession by the appe.ilant/pialntiff was founded on a 02-06-1970 by. late Ghurveen In favour of the appe!!anVp!aintlff< The .did not file and -prove the originai saie-deed. Permission^vas not sought from the Court belo'w to lead secondar^ evidence. The trial Court observed the docurnent Ex.P-1, i.e., the certified copy-of the sale-deed dated 02-OS- 1970 a highiy suspidous document. The iower Court has affirmed the finding.' !n this view of the matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below rightiy to grant rellef to the. appeiianVp!aintiff and no question of iaw arises for deterrnination of this appeal • (4) Shn Yogesh Pandey, learned counse! •for.the appeilant/piaintiff was aiso heard on the appljcation under Order 41 Ruie 27 ofthe Code of Clvjl Procedure for f!!in.g document, i.e,, copy of B-1, Kist Bandl Khatauni. The said appiication does not dlsciose that despite due dlligence the appeiiant/piaintiff was precluded from filing thls document before t'ne Courts below. There is no merit in the said appjicatlon also, The appiication under Order 41 Ruje 27-ofthe Code ofCivi! Procedure aiso stands dlsmissed. (5) In this view of the rnatter, the is dismissed as being without any merit, at the of admission. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopai