4. Singfe Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH. Second Appeal No, i-^^^ /G0@. ^EGCNfi_APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1^0 OF THE CODE OF CIVJL mOCEDURE. APPELUNTS ^LAINTIFFS RESPGNDENTS J3EFEN0ANTS f \ ./<^; ^l^A'".—^-.- s ^Khorbhara, S/o Prahlad, aged about 43 years, Resident of Village and Tah. Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C»G«) Versus iy Parasram, S/o Tara Singh, aged about 80 years* 2-^ Ashok Kumar, S/o Parasram, aged about 37 years. Both Residents of Gram and Tah. Bilha, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) -\- XI-HC-78 *11*l<ril »»+11<sh 3^ ^NI^I^, ^Tn^4i<o, (cidiy^< ...$...A:.^...i.?.y..' ^^ ^2004 3<l^l ^l^cb (ytI^Ci^T) ^^T^T^Jcb ^f^TT 3Tr^?T $b^l<t) _ ?^<TT8^C ^f??T 3TT^T <:bl^f^l41'1 WT^ff^ fe^ <^1<^1< ^3Tf^T3TT^T 04-12-2006 Appellant khorbhara by Shri Heard on admission. The appellant is aggrieved decree passed in Civil Suit Number{ Court of Vllth Civil Judge Clas|s-ll, Bilaspur in First Appeai No. )arag Kotecha, Advocate. ^y the reversal of the judgment and ^105-A/2002 dated 28-02-^003 of the 13-A/2003 by the Additional Distric) decree dated 17-08-2005. Judge, Bilaspur vide judgment and Brief facts are that the appel|ant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents^defendants on the ground that they were encroaching upon the land owtied and possessed by himwhich was shown jn the map annexed to th^ plaintwas also as vague as it could plaint. In the plaint, there were no pleadings as to the descriptions of ^\e land. The map filed along with the ?e. An objection to this effect was also raised by the respondents/defendar|ts in the written statement. However, VIlth Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspi|r vide judgment and decree dated 28-02-2003 in Civil Suit Numbei|-105-A/2002 granted a decree for permanent injunction against the d^fendants. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the defendants preferr^d an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. Vide judgm^nt dated 17-08-2005, the appeal was allowed while reversing the judgm^nt and decree passed by the lower that the plaint map relating to identity {laintiff did not plead the description of lint also. The settlement deed referred V was also not pleaded. On these Court, The First Appellate Court helc| of the suit land was vague and the p| Khasra Number of the land in the pl^ to by the plaintiff in his testimonl XI-HC-78 +11^011 ^HTch 3^ ^i^icl^, ^^^1$, (cicrti<i^< __ ^.A'^o-l; ^ 200^ 3TT^rqsW ('ic'i'id^'aT) 3T[^T ^)T f^TT^ cTSTT 3TR5T 5OTW ^/ ?^<TTW: ^rfN 3T1^T 'L' premises, it was held that the plairfrtiff grant of permanent injunction in his | Shri Parag Kotecha, learnecj not dispute that the defendants wet 125/1 area measuring 9 decimal registered sale deed dated 21-01-1i that in the lower Court, the defendarfits the title of the plaintiff over the suit It was urged that the First Appellatje passed by the lower Court. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff did 1-e the title holders of Khasra Number- in total which were purchased vide $69 and 08-07-1969. It was also stated had also not raised any objection to l^nd bearing Khasra No.125/6 & 117/6. [t|e Court erred in reversing the decree Having considered fhe riv^l record. 1 am of the considered First Appellate Court is purely a| appreciation of the evidence addu< question of law arises for decision trite to mention here that nowhere description of the land sought to b< with the plaint was also as vague as| did hot commit any error of law irli passed by the lower Court. In view of the fact that no this Second Appeal it is accordingl^ Noorderastocosts. In view of above, M.(C.)P.f disposed of. <=t5i^?^41Ti ^ii^^iT ^* te^ <F3i<^i< ^3Tf^TW^T had failed to make out a case for avour. submissions, 1 have perused the op|nion that the finding recorded by the finding of a fact based on proper |sed by the parties and no substantial n|iaking in this Second Appeal. It is also |n the plaint the plaintiff did plead the encroached and the map filed along it could be. The lower Appetlate Court irli reversing the judgment and decree su|3stantial question of law is involved in dismissed at the stage of admission. No|593/2006 for grant of stay also stands Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^