,T^ ?P»f?il% j? C^i'? • c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (227) N0. S^J-^ /2010 .f)? ^ PETITIONER / Kripa Ram S/o Khublu Patel Aged- about 50 years, Caste- Marar, R/o village- Hatoud, P.H.no.-05, Ra.Ni.Man.-& Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^.<^/r\V .<^,.\uy ^w^y ^^ /y'^" ^\^' ..••" ^'.^. '^".^' ^ l.Uchit Bai D/o Kartik Ram Patel Aged-about 60 years, Caste- Marar, R/o village- Hatoud, P.H.no.-OS, Ra.Ni.Man.-8& Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.j 2. Bhagwat S/o Fulwa Patel Aged- about 45 years, caste- Marar, R/o village- Hatoud, P.H.no.-OS, Ra.Ni.Man.-& Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] 3. State of C.G. Through- Collector, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ORDER OR DIRECTIONS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P.f227lNo. 5624 of 2010 PETITIONER KripaRam. Versus RESPONDENTS Uchit Bai and others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.V. Sharma, counsel forthe respondent No.1. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. ORALORDER (11/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Petitjoner has called in question the order passed by the first Appellate Court rejecting his prayer for staying the execution of the decree under Order 41 Rute 5 of C.P.C. (2) The trial Court passed a decree for partition and separate possession in Civil Suit N0.23A/08 on 23rd July, 2010 'rt was directed in the decree that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is entitled to half share in the suit property and is also entitled to recover possession thereof. (3) Petitioner preferred an appeal before the II Acklitional District Judge, Baloda Bazar along with an application under Order 41 Rute 5 of C.P.C. for staying the execution of the decree. By the impugned order the firstappellate Court has rejected the said prayer of the petitioner. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the decree is executed he shall suffer irreparable loss as he shall be dispossessed '^ &^r':'dSa. 1 ^5J ^^y from the suit land and further that in the event the decree is set-aside by the appellate Court unnecessarily complication will arise. (5) This Court has already granted interim relief staying the execution ofthe decree by interim order dated 29/09/2010. Leamed counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner. (6) On perusal of the record it appears that interest ofjustice would be served if the execution of the decree is stayed for a period of six months and during the said period the appellate Court shall make every endeavour to decide the appeal. (7) It is thus directed that if the petitioner fumishes security for a sum of Rs.10.000/- before the first Appellate Court for compliance of the decree which may ultimately be passed by the first appellate Court, the execution of the decree shall remain stayed for a period of six months and the trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide the appeal itself wjthin the said period of six months. (8) With this observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge )c-