% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. WritADpealNo.530/2011 Petitioners Respondents 1. 2. 3. Vs. 1. Dola Ram Sahu, aged about 44 years, S/o. Late Jalam Singh Toshan Sahu, aged about 42 years, son of late Jalam Singh Girdharilal, aged about 60 years, son of Ram Ratan Sahu All are residents of village Bhatgagaon, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) State Bank of India, incorporated and constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Head Office at Bhopal, inter alia Branch Office at Dhamtari. 2. Premchand Agrawal, aged about 60 years, son of not known to the appellant. 3. Radha Bai Nagwani, aged about 48 years, late Raj Kumar Nagwani 4. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, aged about 56 years, son of not known to the appellants. All are residents of Village Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Present: Shri GS Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (24.11.2011.) Heard. "°"JB<°1^. ;ss''^ ^/ W.A. No. 530/2011 2. The appellants have ftted this appeal against order dated 27th September, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.4784 of 2008. By the impugned order, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. 3. A decree in regular civil suit was passed against the appellants on 30.9.1974. It was directed that the appellants shall pay the outstanding amount of loan to the plaintiff/bank within a period of six months along with interest @ 9 % % per annum from the date of the suit till the full satisfaction of the decree. Cost was also awarded. It was also decreed that in case of default, the plaintiff/bank shall be entitled for sale of the hypothecated security and further that the defendants shall not have right to redeem the mortgaged property detailed in the plaint and the same be foreclosed. 4. The appellants/petitioners were ex-parte in the civil suit. It is admitted position that the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.14-A/73 by the Third Additional District Judge, Raipur was not challenged in appeal or in any other proceedings by the appellants/petitioners and the appellants, after a very long time, challenged the above judgment and decree and subsequent proceedings before the writ Court. 5. Admittedly, the said judgment and decree was appealable, but no appeal was filed and after such a long period, the appellants/petitioners have filed this writ petition. K W.A. No. 530/2011 ^^ 6. Shri Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel has argued that the judgment and decree was without jurisdiction and the same was nullity. The judgment and decree is relating to recovery of loan and satisfaction of the said amount by sale. It cannot be said that it was without jurisdiction. If the appellants were aggrieved by any portion of judgment and decree, they would have gone in appeal before the appellate Court. The writ Court has recorded the finding that the judgment was not nullity and therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 7. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the writ Court. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ~) Sd/- l Radhe Shyam Sharma , Judge