i^ 9^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.AT BILASPUR APPELLANT Defendant. RESPONDENTS Plaintiff•^w/ ?wy ^ /^y <? ..-••\-^' .^'".^" .^'^" ,••• V <^ $ing!g Benfih Q<^/k?. fii^/a-^j VERSUS Nagar Panchayat, Pathalgaon, Through Chief Municipal Offioer, Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Manoj Kiu-nar Agrawal, S/o. Late -Gigraj, aged 30 years, Occupation Business, Near bus stand, Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Valuation of Appeal as in Court below: ValuedatRS. 15,235/- Court Fee affixed. Rs.390/- (As per Court below) LIMITATION - Impugned judgement passed on 5.3.2005 and apply for copy on dated 28.3.2005 and suppUed on 4.8.2005 hence within limitation. SECQND_APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI-HC-22 Ti^ ^ffqRPl, -SeKPfS. f^vfKrV(. SIlt^l^iI feiN'sn^i g^iN7^ftg. ^TO^n"^ ^^ 2W^ 3ii^i wrare^ita 17.02.2006 qiTqfepftTWRff •3 fgtZt ^tf5R?R •^SiraqaiT^f Shri AN Bhakta, counsel fj?! None for the respondentsj Heard on admission and oni tespondents fiied a suit of Rs.21,500/- (Rupees twenty-oj allotment of Canteen. Applicanlt oubiic auction and conseauent respondent, but neitiier deliver^ returned the amount. Learde Aggrieyed with the judament t»| appiicant preferred a Civi! appea Jashpur vide judgment qnd appeal. Being aggrieved with •tti< has been filed bv'.the aDolicant. buring the argument, lear| tiiat ah interest @ 6% has be|e affiriTied by the first appellate <( respondent deooslted Rs.21.5( Dossession of the saraie could no| some injunction order passed by f{?r the cipplicant. M.C.P.No. 1311/2005. or recovery' of interest on a deposit ie thousand and five hundred) against for allotment of Canteen 'conducted to it received Rs. 21.500/- from ed possession of the canteen nor ;d tria! Court decreed the sui*. id decree passed by the trja! Court, be.o.r'mg No.28/2004. &istrict Judge se dated 05.03.2005 dis-ailowed the it judgment and decree, this revision ned counsel for the applicant admits awarded by ths trial Court and 'ourt. Further he admits that though /- aqainst aliotment of canteen, but !• be handed over to him because of I'he Civil court in other case. XI-HC-22 T^ T, iSfliy'lto. radiyy ->r Dadma ^s—\ qiN?FN 'qiWJf ^ fSVt 'vSsi ^SlPW'OT^I Admittedly, applicant was by the respondent. Therefore, s, possession of canteen, was en| withheld by the applicant. It h below.that interest was not opinion that ledrned Courts belo and no interference is caiied A jurisdiction. Revision is dismissed accon M.C.P.No./1311/2005 stand in custody of Rs.21,500/- deposited I'espondent, who was deprived of the i|tit!ed for ii'iter'est on tiie amount hjis not beeh proved before the Court on such transactions. I am of the jf.have correctly ai'owed the interest for by this Court in its pevisional •1 ^lingly. Sd/- V.K.Stoivastava judge •