^ p HJGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT SILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Di'iip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Defendant No. 2 Second Appeal No. 58/2006 Laxman S/o Siyaram, Aged about 55 ysars, Occupation - AgricufturisS, R/e Viliage-Shringarpur near Village- Gangpur, Thana & Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 1-A Duj Kunwar D/o Hariia!, W/o Jethu Nai Occupation- House Wife, R/o Village Gokana, Thana- Gandaie, Tahsii Chhuie Khadan 1 B Aajuram S/o Harilal, Aged about 42 Yrs. 1C Rameshwar, S/o Harilal, Aged about 40Yrs. 1D Deeneshwar, S/o Harilal, Aged about 38 Yrs. 1E Santram, S/o Hariial, Aged about 30 yrs. From 1 B to 1E are lega! heirs of Siyaram the originai defendant no. 1, Shey are R/o Viilage Shringarpur near Village-Gangpur, Thana & Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Lakhan S/o Bhuthar Nai, Aged about 35yrs., Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village- Kejedah paas Bami, Tahsi! Kawardha, District- Kabirdham. 3. Ramji S/o Bhuthar Nai, Aged about 35 Years. 4. Hirodlya 'W/o Kanwa! Nai, Aged about 65 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Viilage- Chhotupara, tahsii - Kawardha, District- Kabirdham it S/o Hiralal Aged 40 years. Punnl Bai W/o Late Hiraial Aged about 60 years, Both are the R/o Vjllage- Sarouda Khurd, Thana-Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham »pY v° - 1. 7. DEFENDANT 8. Rohini Bai W/o Shiv Prasad, Aged about 30 years, Occupation- Agricufturist, R/o Viilage-Dhangaon, Thana Lohara, Tahsii-Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Kabirdham (C.G.) Second A@i?eal Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the appeilant. Shri Akhii Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on 20-06-2007) Heard on admisston. 2. This is an appeal by the appeilant/defendant No.2. 3. In Civil Suit No. 124-A/1997 vide judgment dated 22.12.1999, while dismissing the suit the counter claim of the appeilanVdefendant No. 1 was rejected. !n appeai, the iower Appeiiate Court affirmed the same in Civit Appeai No. 112-A/2002 vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2005. 4. A perusal of para 16 of the written statement fiied by the defendants No. 2, 4 and 5 shows that in fact the defendant No. 1 had preferred a counter ciaim white also cteiming relief of injunction against the dsfendant No.2 which was rejected by both the Courts Kw 5. !n this view of the mattsr, 'no substantial question of !aw arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the J- staae of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmiikh Judge