M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 574/2005 APPELLANT Lalla Ram DEFENDANT NO.1 (DIED 85 DELETED! Smt. Anusuiya Bai W/o Late LaJla Ram Sahu aged about 60 years. TeemanLal S/o Late Lalla Ram Sahu aged about 38 years. Gulab Chand S/ o Late Lalla Ram ‘Sahu aged about 36 years. Yeman Lal S/o Late Lalla Ram Sahu aged about 83 years. ‘Khemchand S/o Late Lalla Ram Sahu aged about 30 years. F’Jpow. Kamlesh Kumar ~S/ o Late Lalla Ram Sahu aged: about 26 years. Smt. Usha Baj D/o Late Lalla Ram Sahu W/o Bharatlal Sahu aged about 43 years, ‘ F. All are resident of Village Buddhu Bharda, P. C. Aljuni Tahsil Dongargarh, Distric ~Rajnandgaon C. G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS l. Yogeshwar Kumar S/o Mouji Ram DEFENDANTS Sahu aged about 37 years, farmer, R/ o \ Village-Buddhu Bharda Tahsil— Dongargaon Distn'ct Rajnandgaon RESPONDENT N0. 2 DEFENDNT NO. 2 (C.G.) and State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). w SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sha1ma, J.) Present : Shri RN. Jha, Advccate for the appellants. ' Shri U.K.S. Chandel, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 1. ORALJtiDGEMENT . (Passed on 06/ 1012010} a 1. Heard on admission. 1A. \ (D/‘/b By .this second appeal und€r Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedune, appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of judgment and decree dated 1/ 10/ 2005 passed by First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in civil appeal No. 28-A/ 2002 reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of, suit dated 23/11/2002 passed by First Civil Judge Class-2, Rajnandgaon in civil suit No. 418A] 1997 Where by learned. First Civil Judge Class-2 has dismissed the suit only on the ground that same was not Within limitation. Judgment and decree was challenged ‘before the lower appellate Court and lower appellate Court while affirming the main issue in favour of the respondent No. 1 relating to agreement and reversing the finding of trial Court relating to limitation has decreed the suit. Shii RN. Jha, Advocate for the appellants and Shri U.K.S. Chandel, P.L. for the State/ respondent No. 2 are heard. Judgment and decree of both the Court below and record of both the Court below are perused. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case suit was time barred trial Court has dismissed the suit only on the ground of limitation but lower appellate Court has decreed the suit and has held that suit was within limitation therefore the substantial question of law would be whether lower appellate Court was justiiied in holding that suit was within limitation. As per case of the parties appellants entered into an agreement to sell his land to respondent No. 1 fmally agreement was executed vide EX. P-6 and appellants received fullvconsideration but they have'not executed the sale deed then in the year 1997 suit for specific r.» ‘ performance of contract was )‘ilcd. As par allegation of appallants they have not executed any agreement. They had not received consideration and has not paned with possession, As per agreement EX. P-6 which was signed by appellants and the evidence of both the parties it reveal that present appellants had executed EX. P~6 after receiving full consideration and also handed over the possession of the suit property to the respondent No. 1 but he has not executed the sale deed) Virtually in the present case only execution of the sale deed and its registration was remain for execution.‘ Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation but lower appellate Court has rightly considered that in the'year 1986—1987 the dispute arose thereafter Ex. P—6 was executed and appellants came to Rajnandgaon for registration of the sale deed but Some Parchz‘ document was not available therefore appellants have. not executed the sale deed this shows that after dispute in the year 1987 appellants themselves have resolved the dispute but finally they had not executed the sale deed till .1997. These above facts are suilicient for drawing an inference on 22/ 6/ 9'7 there was no dispute relating to execution and suit filed was within limitation. On close scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence, I do not find any substantial question of law‘ for decision of this second appeal. Consequently, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma JUdge