APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT QF^HHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal No.481 of2005 Rashila Patel W/o Narsingh Patel R/o Village Baima, Tahsil & District Bilaspur RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Latel Gond S/o Hirau, aged about 54 years. 2. Ashok Shastri S/o Baijnath Shastri, aged about 44 years. 3. Rajkumar Suryavanshi S/o Moluram Suryavanshi, aged about 59 years. All resident of village Baima Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) {Second civil appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code} Present: Mr. Rajeev Bharat, counsel for the appellant. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J JUDGMENT (8-12-2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 4-8-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2003, affirming the judgment & decree dated 27-9-2003 passed by the 7 Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.63A/2001, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party and the fact that the plaintiff/appellant herein is not in possession of the property in question. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below. 3. As per case ofthe plaintiff/appellant herein, in her evidence she has deposed that the disputed property has been purchased by her father-in-law in her name and in the names of two other sisters-in-law. Her evidence clearly reveals that the appellant herein is not in possession of the property in question and virtually, her father-in-law is in possession of the suit property. In these circumstances, by dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of Soma .necessary party and absence of possession of the appellant herein, and appeal both the Courts below have not committed any illegality. 4. I do not find any substance or substantial question of law in the appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, atthe admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge |l»»""NNl!-