"i, SIidLE BEiSH IN SHE_BI®ICOIMT OE' .rUDIGATWE, OF CHHATTISGSKIAT BIUSPUR MISG.APPEai, N0. APPEfcIAKTS pEaxmFSFs 1. TJAeshwar Das s/o SSkenQsa minor tbrougb next friand nother Gayatri Bai w/o Jlfeendra oas, resi.dent of v.Lllage Rawan, Tahsil BaXoda- Baaar DJ.etrict Raipur 2. Khi.lentiE'a Das s/o Jitendradas Srten3 mother Gayatari Bai w/o a'itenoiraaas sssiQest of v.U.lage Rawan, Tahsil Baloaa. Bazar Distrj.et Raipur Bas s/o Vaishnava aged 43 (Forty three yeairs , VER$US ~'~~7 KESPOMSENTS BySm»w~s ,***^' ^^ \yt//.^ / ^<~ /^".^ /•\~^ ..••• ^"^y ^y %?' Cl^10"- Oas s/o Das s/o (^ ^?.; Sati Bai w/o vijendra Oas '-. Vaislmatr, aged 53 years^ P^ 4. RajendraDas s/o •KastakSas Baiahnaw, aged 5G yeara^ ?-- 5. Taisesliwae' Das s/o Rajendra •' Valshnav age<a 29 yea?Si; 6. iSisassbwar Das s/o Rajendradas ,- Vaisnnav, age<3 27 yeass {^—3.Saraswati Bai w3/o Kanakdas Vaishnav aged 92 years, ^ Baloaa- Raipuc (C.G.) >. State of Ghhafctlsgarh throu^a tlie colleetor, Raipuri Distrist Ra.i.pur U4 ^ XI-HC-22 -s-a^WKW, "Tfl-y'is. t^rrey sn^rqrf R-li* 311^1 ^iHiqi yfid Bi- Sli.' '^^•g •^^^^ ^'^'^- '^^/o sn^iTOiiw^ifro Mr. Jaaak Raia Verm|a, Mr. Raja Sharma, co]|uis Mr. J.D.Bajpai, Govetninent No.S/State. |a, counsel for tlie appellants. juisel for respoadents No. 1 to 7. Advocate for I'espondent Leamed counsel for disposal ofthe apueal iastead oflli! Considered. AUowedj Heard. The appeUants, on is coparceneiy properhr of the apj{: 7, which has not so far been part iajunction and inesne profit, aai|i Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read CivU Procedure prayhig to aUenating ftie suit propertv' tiU di No.1 to 7 opposed fhe suit aad f 1981, all fhe lands were fhereafter laads have been the revenue record who are m. pos share. estrtoi nartitidned recoitled Leamed trial Court, tlte parties, dociiiuents aad aftej' that, fhe case of flie appeUar^ts fepftf 1TO"ff'? 1S1^ tfSRSR ^; aipgit snisi the parties pray for hearu.ig aad sarmg ofM.(C.)P.No.842/2005. tl^e averment that tlie suit propert}'" :ip^)ellaats and respondents No. 1 to {titioned, jaled a suit for pmtition, also filed aa application under wifh Section 151 of the Co.de of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 froia d|sposal of tlie suit. Respondents |)leaded fhat, ui the vear 1980 or among the copai-ceners and iii their i^s-Dectiye nam.es ia 4session thereofaccording to fiieir •onsidering the pleadiags ofboth recordiug detailed reasons held is aot priina facie §g..d . tlie •-i- [^v/ t;R^ -jr< -)^ l^^ 'Svj "i<,|<<10'-!.»T{i<1f|S. l<si<;1l'M'4,< ^f. ^l: A,-,^ .&:9-^-~ /^. ••-^ : SII^T^; l<;-fi?b SII^T 5f)141^ ^f?tt sii^r i^iiWH^a «blilid41-]'RTCI?it' ^ fs^ ^RSff ^ a'Pg'q sni?i priiiciples of balance of couvenie|nce and ureparable loss also do not ]ie in fheir favour,,fherefore, d|isinissed fhe appUcation. UudisButedlv, the laij Kauak Das, said to be tlie respondents No. 1 to 7. It is alsc| Ids were recorded ia tlie naiiie of [acestor of the appeUants smd not disputed fhat Kaiials: Das is dead aad.appellaiit No.3, Jitendrfe Das, icsDondent No.l, Viiendra Das, respondent No.4, Rajendra .7, Saraswati Bai is his wife. I trial Court fhat, wheu the suit. protierty was not recorded ioiutl and resTiondents No.l to 7 but pas are his sons aiid respondeiit is apparent froia the order ofthe Iwas fUed, at tliat time tlie suit in tlie naines of the apilellailts was recorded separately in tlieir names. Respondents' contentior^ ia.tlie vear 1980-1981 and accoil is that, oral pai-tition took place ding to the pai'tition all fhe tfi.ree sons axid Saraswati Bai held lanlds separatelv aiid siace tlien are enjo^Tiig fh.e propert}7. It is also a[ Court that, appeUaat' N0.3,1 com.pensati.on amount of tliose Isj Cenient. Froru all these fa.cts pri'| jitds which wefe acquired bv Modi lpia fade it appears tliat tiie laiids are recordedseparately iu the najmes of coparcenei-s, as a result of som.e separation in fhe veai' 19BO or 1981 i.e. fhe period wben appellants No.l. and 2 were n4 establish that, for graiit of teiup^ balance of convenience and print ia favour of the appellants; aadj pparent fi-ODi the order offhe trial Jitendra Das received the it bom. AU Qiese facts clearlv rarv iiijuiictioil, primafacie case, ;iple of irrenai-able loss clo not lie tlie trial _Court, ia recordiug the XI-HC-22 ^ST -xfpw^f, •SWOTS, Tsrai'M;],- h/ (V| . ^:. t<Ces , .fc^S /e. '""S^( 2i •s sn^i^ii l^iWSIlt^! .St>Hictl fll^fl ;.Sinsh sn^fT^TWHft^ tllis said fiudia.gs after elaborate discut However. it is uiade clear that, passed by the trial Court shaU not] The apoeal, being de^ for anv iiiterference and is fheirfoi) In the Ught of sta&ds disinissecl. •sion, did not coirmiit aay eiTor. order or flie imougned order affect the inerit of fhe case. •oid of substgm.ee, does not c£ul ; disiaissed. /e order, M.(C.)P.No.842/2005 »l<<I<n<A-l'WRffi 4 'fiISt"{f;»RCTI: q; sipgii ant^r Sd/- Vijay Kumar Shrivastav, Judge