;\,¥/3~ ‘, ‘ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ?> t5)” Writ Petition (Under Art. 227) No. /2011 PETITIONERS 11/ Kanhaiya S/o Rohitdas aged about 66 APPELLANTS/ years, DEFENDANTS / 2] Ghasiram S/o Anek, aged about 69 years 3]( Umaram S/o Santuram, aged about 48 years, 4] K Bajrha S/ 0 Situ aged about 49 years - Ririram (Since dead) 5f Parasram S/o Ririram, aged about 45 years — Ei¥rpram (Since dead) g. aHFm‘w 6] Shyamlal S/o w, Aged about 65 years 9% — Aasharam (Since dead) 7] Kandaram S/ o Aasharam, aged about 32 years - Rampati S/ o Dilipram (Since dead) 8] Shastrilal S/o Rampati, aged about 38 years All above R/o Village Mohtara, P. H. N. 20, R. I. B. (whom) ~ Bhatgaon Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Bhaktin Bai D/o Bhajoram Satnami PLAINTIFFS (Since dead) 1] Navdha S/ o Dhaneshwar Anant 2] Amaru S/ o Dhaneshwar ® Saranggarh, District ~ Raigarh (CG) Aasharam (Since dead) 8] Tikeram S/ o Aasharam 9] Churelheen Bai Wd/ '0 Aasharam Puratan Bai D/ o Aasharam 10] Mandakini D/ o Hemlal 11] Kisan S/ o Hemlal 12] Ravi S/o Hemlal, minor through his guardian Hemlal All above R/o Tadapara, District — Raipur (CG) 13] Mehattarin Bai D/ o Aasharam 14] Ahilya Bai D/ o Aasharam All above R/ o Mohtara, Police Station —— Sarsiwa, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District — Raipur (C.G.) Ririram S/ 0 Lodho 15] Ganesh S/ o Ririram 16] Mahesh S/ o Ririram 17] Daras S/ o Ririram 18] Samaru S/o Ririram 19] Guharam S/ o Ririram 20] Budhwara S/ o Ririram 3] Samaru S/o Dhaneshwar 4] Shyambai D/ o Dhaneshwar 5] Bitawan S/ o Dhaneshwar 6] Ramchhed S/ o Dhaneshwar 7] Anand S/ 0 Dhaneshwar A11 above R/ o Riwa, Sarar, 29] 30] 31] 39] All above R/o Mohtara, Tahsil — Bilaigarh, District — Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Collector Raipur (CG) Zoradihin W/ o Ririram Sadhuram S/o Dulay Sai Ramswaroop S/o Kail Singh Mohna S/ o Santuram Rampati (Since dead) Ramlal S/ o Rampati Amritlal S/ 0 Rampati Indal S/o Konda Samami Ianeram S/ o not .known to the petitioners ‘ Ishwar Prasad S/o Shivcharan Tulsiram S/o Suwar Satnami Aghori S/ o AChheram Tulsiram S/o Bhajan Samami Bhavdas S/ 0 not known the petitioners Dujeram S/ 0 not known the petitioners Bodhram S/ o not known the petitioners Kuikeet S/o Chheduram Jagatrarn S/ o not known the petitioners Jhangaii Wd/ o Awadram WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition $227) N0. 845/2011 petitioners. ‘ _ Shri HS. Ahluwalia, counsel for respondent No. 1, Navdha S/o Dhaneshwar Anant on caveat. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy.G.A. for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M ORAL ORDER (11.02.2011) Matter is fmally disposed of as it involves a very short question regarding stay of the execution ofthe decree which is under challenge before First Appellate Court. (2) Civil Judge Class‘II, Bhatgaon District Raipur passed a decree in Civil Suit No.56—A/201O directing the defendants/petitioners to deliver possession of the suit land to plaintiff Bhaktin Bai (since deceased represented through her legal heir). First appeal preferred by petitioners are pending before the Second Additional District iJudge, Baloda Bazar. In the said appeal the petitioners preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for staying the execution of the decree during pendency of the first appeal. Learned Appellate a Court, by the impugned order has rejected the application. Versus dead)and others RESPONDENTS : Bhaktin‘Bai (Since Aggearance: and Shri Viklam Dixit, counsel for the (3) Shri Dixit learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that if the decree for possession is executed and the petitioners are dispossessed from the suit lands, not only they shall suffer irreparable loss, but it may also create complication as in the event of the appeal being allowed, another proceeding for restoration of possession would be required to be initiated. Shri Ahluwalia learned counsel s appearing for respondent No.1 on caveat has vehemently opposed the prayer and has argued that the petitioners. have absolutely no case in their favour for grant of stay of the execution of the decree and as such the prayer made under Order 41 Rule 5 of CFC has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Court (4) After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is convinced that the Appellate Court has committed error of jurisdiction by refusing to stay the execution of the decree of possession granted by the Trial Court. (5) The Appellate Court has not assigned any reason whatsoever while refusing the prayer for grant of stay. It has not dealt with the crucial question regarding irreparable loss or prima facie case in favour of either party, nor merits of the appeal, in brief, has been dealt with. (6) In View of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction that the operation of the impugned decree in so far as it relates to delivery of possession shall remain stayed during pendency l of the first appeal, on petitioners furnishing security for a sum of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four weeks from today, for compliance of the decree which may eventually be passed by the Court while deciding the first appeal. (7) It is also directed that the Appellate Court shall do well to make every endeavor to dispose of the first appeal itself as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (8) The writ petition stands disposed of. M/o