HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SecondAppeal No. 119/2007 Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. -4 ^ Appellant PIaintiff Resoondents Defendants 4. E. Ramprasad Rao, aged about 28 yrs. s/o late E. Malteshwar Rao R/0 R.S.D. Colony, Raipur P.O./Distt. Raipur CG Versus Smt E. Gauri, aged about 45 yrs, wd./o E. Mal!eshwar Rao E. Naresh, aged about 20 years s/o iate E. Malleshwar Rao E. Jagdish, aged about 18 yrs s/o tate E. Malleshwar Rao Np. 1,2, and 3 r/o R.S.D. Cojony Raipur, P.O./Distt. Raipur CG Divisional Raihfl/ay Manager South-East-Central Railway Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Present:- Shri B.L. Dembra, counsel for the appellant. ORALJUDGMiMT (Passedon 12th April, 2007) Heard on admsssion. 2. The appellant is aggrie\ d by the judgment dated 29.12.2006 passed in civil appeal No. 7A/2006 by 10th Addt. District Judge (FTC) Raipur whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 passed in civil suit No. 14-A/2002 passed by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Class-l, Raipur was affirmed. 3. Having heard the tearned counsel for the appeltent, i have perused the impugned judgment as also the copy of the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 passed by the 1 Civil Judge. Class-l and am of the constdered opinion that both the Courts beiow have on a proper appreciation of ttie evidence, both oral and documentary, record^i a finding that the appeilanVpiaintiff had failed to prove that he was the son of E. Malleshwar Rao from his first wife. It is aiso pertinent to note that the best witness i.e. first wife of E. MatSeshwar Rao was not examined by the appellantfplaintiff before the lower Court. 4. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. In view of the above, I.A. No. 1/2007 for stay is dismissed and t.A. No. 2/2007 for urgent hearing stands dtsposed of. i^ g^y Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya