^ ^ H8GH COURTOF CMHATTIS€3ARHATBILASPUR <SB: Hon'ble ^r.' T.P.SHARI^A, J.)1 ) CivljRevislonNoJ4of2809 Bhisam Das !Vs. ' ^ ! | ! • Bimla Bai and anothsr ^'(l^ POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENTOFTHEORDER QN 22/11/2010 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ ^: ;!; 1 1;. 'IJ Apoiicant Riaintlff HiGH.GOURT.OF-GHHATTISQARM^.Btl.ASgUR1 ^ Givil_%ev|s|©rs:;'NoJ4,©f.20@t. ^ Bhisam Das s/o Shri Kavidas Sahu .aged.55 yrs:''r/o.: Gram-Paiarl Tah- (3urur;DJ3tt:Du^CG ^ 1 on-apDSicants lefendahts ^:'- Versus 1. Bimla Bai aged 44 yrs w/o Jagieshar:':' •'.; -...l',l;:::|;:; ^;1 "• 2. SuraJ Bai w/o Mangstui Ram aged ^ys :., .!:; „,.. ::j1' :. •:.1:. both r^o : Gram-Palarl tah-Gurur : ,DJStt:.Dui^'CG;;:, . j , .,•, II RevlsiQn under Sectson 115 of thej CPC) ,(SB:.,Hon'bieMr.;T.P.'Sliarma,J.), Present:' ../1.1.':,.:1..1;':.'.. :,^ ,; 1 .: :1/ ' .:; .1. ' :• . . \ ' IVIrARUrag DayalShrlvastava^Gounseifortheappiicant. -ORDER:-^,' •.••••!:;1'. " ! . (Deih/ered on 22nd November. 201 Q) 1;.';; i-jeardon admisslon.., -'. ::. .' : ':.. 1;::', .,1 11 ; l:: ', ;' . . 11 .'. '• .. 2. Bythisclvilrevlsion.theapplieaht/plalntjffhaschallengedthe.legalityand property of th& ]^ Adcllfional Distrlc^ JudQe (F.I'.C.), Bajod, in Cw reversmg the judgmerit and ^ecree dat6d^^^^4 Clvil Juctge Giass-ii, Ba!od in Civit Suit No.12B/01 whereby sust for damages filed by the appiicant/pSajntiff has been d^ereed agalnst the non- appilcantsheresn/defendaRts No.4 and 5. I \ As per piaint aitegation, the applicanVpSaintiff has constructed house^ a walioyerthsiandowriedbyhimwhich^w therespQndentsandcau^dd8mages<)fRs^,00^ Rs.25,000/- was fsled by ths applicant. By fiijng written statement, the respondentshaveGontsstedthesyftandhavealiegedthattheyhavenot damag^d.ordlsmantJedofwaiSorroomconstructectbytheapplicant After providing opportunity of hearing to frae parties, the 1st Qivit Judge C1ass-il,Balocthasclecreedtbesultf6rdamages.Samewasohal{enged ^ 5.: befbre the iower appeUate Court aoci the Sower app reversing the judgmentand decree ofthe trial Court has dlsml suit.\.;:;.:,,:.-.,Y. :: i have heard iearned counsel for the appl^ anddecreesoffheGourtsbelowandrecordsoftheGourtsbeiow. l^amedr counsel for the apptlcant ar^ued that the appjicant/plaintiff bas :-ll^^<.^-te^r:;\;:^i'^:,:j^^ proved^hat ttiepressnt non-appiicants have demolishe^ the walS and Foom constrycted by tlie appilca^ damages tothe tuhe of Rs.25,OOQ/- bydocumen^ &ut lower appeiiate Court has^^^^^^^^ ^applicsnt/plaintitfandrsversedth^judgrnentanddecreeoffhetti The applicant?piaintiff has examined himself, Ash^ Nathyram (PVV^) ,and Rajesh S^ supported the case.ofthe ap3%iicanys^a'nti^ haveex9mined^8ges8^CDVV-1)^Ra{7in^h(D^ who have denled the ^ Gf any constru^ion made by the ':^\lapp}iGant.}l'^:':'';..1 •''^ .:.j:, •r;:.' 7. As per documentary evidence, inspection report ^ constmctionwasyptochhajaievel.meansnfG^^ respondent NQ.I herein Bimia Bai aione has dam^Qed the wai!. As^^^^p applicatjen Ex.P/Smadetoy oneBrajesh Kumar^^v^ suit to Sarpaneh, he has corsstrycted wall of 6 feet height with the consent of respondent NoJ Bimta Bal. When Brajesh^^ K^ constructlon, then^amewas dismantied by her. Br^esh K^ ; the applicant, has servecS nc^ice Ex.R/7 upon Jagesar, in which It has ':111'^';'::;:-.;'::^.^,;;^::_ been mentioned that walS w^ Blmla, Devendra, Om, SVSangtu, Sur^ and pther persons whlch was repliedbyJagesartoBrajeshKijmarvtdeEx.P/e.^spercertlfic^ by Rajesh Kumar Tamrakar (PW^, 22^^^^^^^^^ 3 columnsand22x0feet,R.C.C.roofwasfounddi^mantledand^d^ was assessed Rs.2S,000/- As per these documentary evidence, coRstrucAloFipfBrajeshKumarhasbeendJsmantted^^^^^^ has oniydismantSedsomeportsonofwaii.but^^^^ x 10 fe^ v^ji, 3 coSumns and 22x 6 fe^ These documents are contradictory to each others. Document E%.P/9 S3>\ ^ ^' ^ certificate reveais that the property owned by the applicant was damaged,' but Initiaily documents Exs.P/4 to P/7 reveal that the propsrty bwned by Brajssh Kumgr has b&en substantiaEly damaged by respondeht No.1 Bimla Baf Brajesh Kumar has not filed any suft for recovery of damages. 8. As per para 9 of the piaint, by dlsmantijng, portion of house i.©.22 x 6 feet room with height of 10 feet ciamaged to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, but reason best known lo the applicant/piaSnttff, he has filed sult for recoyery ofonly Rs.25,000/-. The aforesajd dpcuments are seif-oontradsctoFy and show that damage has b@en caused to Brajeshjh^mar and not t&the present appilcant. Brajesh Kumar has not filed any sujt. Only some portion of vmli has been damaged by respondent |No.1 Blmia Bai cwned by Brajesh Kumar and hot by the appiicant. ^•' 9. Vlrtually this was the suit for reGovery of damages and not fbr any liqujdated amount. The appSicant was under <?b{lgation t6 prove by necessary evidence that how much damage has been cau^^^ Thetriai Court was reqylred to reglster the suit as A classsuit. '10. Evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, especiaily documentary evidence of the applteant reveais that the appjlcant is not haylng any ioeus standi to claim the darnages caused to Brajesh Kumar. Whlle rsyersing the judgment and deeree of the triat Court, the iower appellate Court has neither commltted any iliegaiity nor jfalied to sxercise the jurisdicttonvsstedonit. ^.^ 11. Consequentiy, i do not find any substance in this irevislon. Civli revlgion being without substance is Ijabie to be dlsmissed and it Is hereby dtemiSsfed,8tthemotionstageitseif.NooFderastocosts. B/-