Vff *’v* “4" r i <‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Go Second Aggal No.503 of 2004 {Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code} Present: , Mr. Atul Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J JUDGMENT (8—12—201 1) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, .the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 16-6-2004 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.31-A/ 2002, affirming the judgment & decree dated 9—8-2001 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-ll, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.134—AI2001, whereby the trial Court 'has dismissed the civil suit as well as the counter claim filed on behalf of the appellant herein. 2. l have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below. . As per iriitial claim of the respondents herein/plaintiff, the respondents herein have filed civil suit for declaration of sale deed dated 4-10-71, in favour of the appellant herein, as null and void and for permanent injunction, on 22-9-80 in which the appellant herein had filed counter claim on 10-9—99 and claimed ‘ APPELLANT/: Bisahin Bai wife of Netram Lodhi, aged (Defendant) 40 years, resident of village Bhadamm, Police Station Koni Tahsil and District Bilaspur. Versus RESPONDENTSI: 1. Awadhram S/o Gadaram Lodhi village (Plaintiffs) Bhadam Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur. (Dead) A. Hradayram Son of Awadhram Village Bhadam, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. B. Ramsharan son of Awadhram, village Bhadam, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. 2. Smt. Ganeshiya Bai, wife of Gandhi Lodhi, village Bhadam, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. 3. Birij Lal son of Kartika Lodhi, village Motipur post Motipur, P.O. Bhilai. possession over the suit property bearing Khasra No.274/01‘ area 0.84 acre, situate at Village Bhadam, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur. 4. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the civil suit as well as the counter claim on the ground that the counter claim was barred by limitation, same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal filed against the dismissal of counter claim. 5. As per finding of both the Courts below, the appellant herein has been dispossessed in the year 1980 and has filed counter claim in the year 1999 after lapse of nineteen years of such dispossession, she has not filed counter claim on the basis of title‘ but has filed counter claim on the basis of dispossession. ln accordance with Article 65 of the Limitation Act, limitation for filing counter claim was twelve years, but the appellant has filed counter claim after more than eighteen years of her dispossession. Therefore, by dismissing the civil suit and the counter claim and also the appeal both the Courts below have not committed any illegality. . l do not find any substance or substantial question of law in the appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, l.A.Nos.1 & 2 stand dispose /V (/77 Sal . ' judge Soma TasWA V