Kircma Tah. Mungeli (CG) 5 Sfon‘e of Chhamsgurh Through »- 1he District COHeC’ior, Dist. Bilospur (ChhaHisgdrm 7 W f, V SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECUON 100 OF THE C PROCEDURE! 1908 \A , Disti. Bucspur ODE OF CN1L i$waA v’£ ‘ : A k , _ _nwwg§_ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. 138/2008 APPELLANT Ram Kumar Nirmalkar Versus RESPONDENTS Basant Kumar Tiwari and others SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :— Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. O RAL O RD ER (10-3v2011) \ 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 for condonation of delay in finging the second appeal. As per office, the present appeal is barred by 1583 days.” 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 by judgment and decree dated 10-2—1998. The appellant became award 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 30th April, 2007. He submitted that the appellant was not a party in the suit and was not aware about the judgment and decree, therefore, the delay is bonafide and deserves to be condoned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 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 H mWWAEx‘WV/SNWW wW _ years of the passing of the judgment in the first appeal (Civil Appeal No. 08—A/98), therefore, such an inordinate del cannot be condoned. 5. The suit was preferred by the respondent No. 1 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. 1 was allowed by the Additional District Judge 'vide judgment and decree dated 2—9—2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8—A/98. The present appellant is claiming that he is owner, in possession, of the property as he has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed and thus he is not only interested but an aggrieved party and therefore, the appeal is maintainable. 6. Having regard to the facts situation, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any sufficient cause or bonafide reason for delay of 1583 days in filing the appeal. The delay of almost four years has been tried to be explained by submitting that the appellant was not a party in the suit/appeal. It is settled law that a decree passed in a civil suit/appeal is binding against the party against whom the decree has been passed and the said decree is not binding on the present appellant. If at 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. 7. In any case this Court is not satisfied with the reason assigned for explaining the delay in tiling the appeal. The application I.A. No. 1 is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal is also dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge ay