^. '^^ ^h. ,^; ^- INTHE HIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARH BILASPUR FIRSTAPPEAL N0. R4 OF20K APPELLANT : ^PLAINTIFF L^l^. ....-;:%1^^> ^^:^.^v'' p<<9^' .. ^ VERSUS 6^lt'" ^ Ku. Krishna Basantani D/0 Late Shri Arjun Basantani, aged about 38 years, R/0 Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, TahsH and District Raigarh, (C.G.) ^^- RESPONDENTS: . DEFENDANTS /(I) Nirmala Devi W/0 Late Bhagwan Das aged about 46 years, Occupation- House Wife. ^. KumarA Sarita D/0 Bhagwan Das, aged about 20 years. (3) (A) Ashok Kumar Godwani S/0 Tarachand Godwani, aged about 35 years, Occupation- Private Service. @r ^ (Et)Minor Kumari Anjali Godwani D/0 Ashok Kumar GQdwani, agect about 07 years, Occupation- Dependand. R/0 Respondent No. 3 (a) and (b) near Pani Tanki, side ofWell No. 04 Chakarbhatham Bilaspur, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) ) Shyam S/0 Bhagwan Das Basantani, aged about 24 years. (5) Dolly D/0 Late Bhagwan Das, aged about 23 years. (6) Murari S/0 Bhagwan Das, aged about19years. Respondent No. 01 to 02 and Respondent No. 04 to 6 are R/0 Sindhi CQlony, Police Station- Chakradharnagar, Tahsil anct District- Raigarh, (C.G.) (7) Smt. Bhagwanti Talreja W/0 ^ Chandralal Talreja, aged about 48 years, Occupation- House Wife R/0 Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil and District- Raigarh, (C.G.). (8) Maya Lakhwani, W/0 Atalram Lakhwani, aged about 40 years, R/0 Umarkot, Distrist Koraput (Orissa). $<n^_ (9) ^Smt. SaffDevi W/0 Naresh Kumar, r <^ agedabout 39 years. (10) Nitish Kumar S/0 Naresh Kumar r Agrawal, aged about 19 years, Respondent No. 086^and 10 are R/0 Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District- Raigarh, (C.G.). Qr' Suresh Kumar S/0 Santlal Agrawal, aged about 42 years. ,(12) Smt. Krishna Devi W/0 Suresh aged \\w^^^w^m^^t^ Tolv\. 5)h-tr-^^^^QGC"9 U^ 7y .(13) Madhya Pradeh (Now Chhattisgarh), through Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.). MEIWIORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CQDE. ^ 4f. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. 'F^i^lu First Apoeal fPRi No. 604 of 2010 APPELLANT Ku. Krishna Basantani. Versus RESPONDENTS Nirmala Devi and others. Shri Wasjm Miyan, counsei for the appeljant. Shri Sanjeev Agrawa!, Pane! Lawyer forthe State/respondent No.13. ORAL ORDER (01/07/2011) This first appeai was presented on 22/02/2010 challenging the judgment and decree dated 20/01/2010 passed by the tria! Court. When an office objection was raised regarding jn sufficiency of Court fee, the appellant has moved the subject application I.A. No. 1 for converting the first appeal in to M.C.C. as the appellant intends to fiie an appeal jn forma pauperis. Along with application the appeliant has annexed an order dated 28/01/2000 whereby the trial Court had allowed the appellant's application under Order 33 Rule 2 of C.P.C. to permit her to sue as forma pauperis. (2) Order 44 of C.P.C. makes provision regarding appeais by indigent persons. Any prayer for preferring an appea! as an indigent person has to be proposed and dealt with under the provisions regarding suits by indigent persons as provided under Order 33 of C.P.C.' Rule 3 of Order 33 of C.P.C. provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the applicatjon shall be presented to the Court by the applicant, in person, unless he is exempted from appearing in Court, in which case the appiication may ^be presented by an authorized agent who can answer all material questions ^StaH^tia^ :^m\ ^y -2. -nTW5 dP relating to the application, and who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined had such pariy attended in person." Period of limitatjon for filing an appeal as a pauper has been provided as 60 days under Article 130(a) ofthe Limitatjon Act. (3) in the present case neither the appeal nor the application for conversion has been presented in person. The judgment and decree was passed on 20/01/2010 and the application for conversion has been submitted on 02/12/2010 i.e. after period of60 days. (4) For all the aforesaid reason, this Court is not incJined to entertain this application for conversion of the first appeal into an M.C.C. for leave to appeai as forma pauperis. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file afresh either as a forma pauperis or a regular first appeal along with a prayer for condonation of delay, if she Js in a position to pay the Courtfee. (6) Prayer allowed. (7) The appeal js dismissed as withdrawn with the Jiberty as aforesaid. (8) Certified copy of the impugned order be returned on supplyjng Xerox copy thereof. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge K