:1'\,.. ^ ;\0'a. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH; BILASPUR Singie Bench: ARpeUants DefendanSs Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. First Appeai No. 12 of 2008 1. Smt Rukhmani Bai, aged 52 years, W/o Narayan Prasad Sharama, 2. Narayan Prasad Sharma, aged 60 years, S/o Prithvi Raj Sharma (Not shown in the triat court) Dharmendra, (Son), aged 35 years, S/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Al! R/o Qtr. No. 227, Santra Badi, Durg (CG) Nand Kishor Vyas, aged 58 years, "aintlff S/o Babulal Vyas, R/o Qtr. No.1, Rice Bran OiS Mill Parisar, Dhamdha Naka, Durg, Tah. and Distt. Durg (CG) First apDeat under Section 36 of Civii Procedure Code Present: Shri Ravindra Agarwai, counsei for the appeliants. (Passed on 04.02.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appeiiant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decrea dated 13.09.2007 delivered by the XIth Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg, vrfiereby the suit for possession and damages was decreed in favour of the respondent/piaintiff. (3) 'st is not in dispute that the appellanydefendant's right to file written statement was ciosed in view of non-filing of the written statement within the period stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is aiso not in dispute that the writ petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court, as withdrawn. The appeSSant/defendant was granted opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs witness nameiy Smt. Tulsi Vyas. The argument that in the absence of the statement on oath of the respondent/piaintiff, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the Court cannot be --Z-- countenanced because in the cross-examination of Smt. Tulsi Vyas, the appellants/defendants have taken the stand that the respondent/plaintiff namely Nand Kishore Vyas has suffered from Hemiparesis andwas unable to depose before the Court. So iar as the testimony of Smt Tuisi Vyas being the foundation for granting reiief to the respondent/plaintlff by the trial Court is concerned, the learned counsei for the appellants has not been able to create any dent in the testimony of Smt Tulsi Vyas, during the course of the arguments. (4) In this view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no substance in this appeal. Accordingiy, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Pr'ra (5) in view of t'ne above, t.A. No.1, wh\ch is an apptication under Order-41 Rule-5 of the Civii Procedure Code for grant of stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge