1 BIR©^ETHE hlON'BLE MIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS^AgH AT BII-ASRU:K^B.] APPELLANT RESPONDENTS ^L$ 1 ^r^ts^ '"^^^l^ ^.^ SECOND APPEAL N0.3 8CI /2Q07 Premclas sbn bf Chhunjharu, aged about 60 years, casfe Satnami, resident of viltage Madwctni, P.S.. Hirri, Tohsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.Q.) VE^SUS Basant Kumar Tiwari, son of. Nakchhad Prasact Tiwari, aged about 56 years, resident bf village MQdwQni, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (c.©.)•" picJ^^^H; Bisqhu s©nof Bobdcis aged about 45 years, Tibal spn of tdas, aged about 70 years, Tijram sbh bf Sahghahi, agect abbut 40 years, Keju sbh of Basaraon, aged about 40 y_ears Respondeht Np.2 tb 5 are the resident © village Madwahi, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.©.) 2. -^ >.A ^.,5- ^ >:iK T' ,6. Phudu s©n ^ ©T Mahohar, agect abbut O years, resident of yillage Kirana Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (£.©.) 7. State of Chhattisgarh through - the District CbllecTor, Dist. Bitaspur (Chhatfisgarh) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1QO QF TI-IE CDDE OF CIVIL PROCEDUIU9Q8 ^ §N^^ -7> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 384 of 2007 Appellant Premdas Versus Respondents Basant Kumar Tiwari & others SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 QF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra J.) Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjay 8. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No, 1. O R D ER (orall (Passed on this 18th day of November, 2010) 1. Heard on I.A.No.l for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal. ' 2. As per the office report the present appeal is barred by 1245 days. 3, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant was not a party in the Civil Suit No. 26-A/88, which was dismissed byjudgment and decree dated 10.2.1998. The appellant became aware of the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/98, when the respondent No.l/plaintiff started claiming that he is the owner of the land by virtue of the decree passed by the Civil Court. According to learned counsel, since the appellant came to know about the claim made by the plaintiff, he applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree, which was received on 9.3.2007 and the appeal was preferred on 30thApril, 2007. He subnaitted that the appellant was not a party in the suit and '^ 6. was not aware about the judgment and decree, therefore, the delay is bonafide and deserves to be condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.l would submit that this appeal is not maintainable as the appellant was not a party before the Court below and more over the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained. The appeal is filed almost after four years of the passing of the judgment in the first appeal (Civil AppealNo. 08-A/98), therefore such an inordinate delay cannot be condoned. The suit was preferred by the respondent No.l Basant kumar Tiwari for declaration and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 10.2.1998. However, the first appeal preferred by the respondent No.l was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli vide judgment and decree dated 2nd September, 2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 08-A/98. The present appellant is claiming that he is the owner, in possession, of the property as he has purchased the suit land from Janakram and Membai by registered sale deed dated 23rd April, 1986 and thus he is not only interested but an aggrieved party and therefore the appeal is maintainable. Having regard to the facts situation, in the opinion ofthis Court the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any sufficient cause or bonafide reason for delay of 1245 days in filing the appeal. The delay of almost four years has been tried to explain by submitting that the appellant was not a party in the suit/appeal. It'is settled law that a decree passed in acivil suit/appeal is binding against the party against whom the '/ decree has been passed and the said decree is not bmding on %; [ ^ ^ < 7. the present appellant. Ifat all the appellant is aggrieved, he has the remedy of raising objection during the execution by setting up an independent title or by filing a duly constituted civil suit to challenge the impugned judgment and decree that he was not a party in the trial Court. In any case this Court is not satisfied with the reason assigned for explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The application (I.A.No.l for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur