^ a ^ ,.^ ® IN.THE HIGH OURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. Mi /2005 Appelant/Defendant SINGLE BENCH ^ Kalanath Kurre, S/o Babudas Kurre, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Eramshahi Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) y§. Respondent/Plantiff \ ^•>^ r^^ ^3>^ ...•<^T'S.>"' !>-"yry ^yx '^" 1.. /' 2. e •I ^. ^- ^^^-v" lo — -'iVY' BluA^»ui" Lakhan Lal Patel S/o Kartikram Patel Caste Patel, R/o Village Eramshahi, Tahsil Seepat^ District- Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) Claim in appeal valued as Rs.16,340/- Court fee Afftked Rs. T760/- as in lower appeallate Court. ^^'" Second Appeal U/S 100 C.P.C. XI-HC-22 3n^?T^T IWWStCT 2BTOF<ift(T [ |i»e 3'^" •<II<IK»I<I, ®Tf1^<KS,ftdiy!j< OT^TT^i' i ^ 2005" WN^ITWWW ^s^. ^ir^y ^cnw. <w<r .199(6 sitiliated 20.06.2005 Shri A+ul Pendey, couns&l None for re^pondent NoJ| Shri JD Bajpai, ©ov^rnme^t Heard on admission and od A civij suit bearing piain+iff LQkhanlal Patel c^ain^ performance of contract and p^ th<tt the appellant on 28.04.3 No.432/1 area 0.47 decimal, for o consideration of Rs.16,0^0/" receivJng the 5aid consideratioj possession thersof to respond^r 26.06.20(X), app&dant failed to e.\ Appellant / dsfendant, took a loan of Rs.5CK^/- on th^ cultivate the ^uit land for four the appellant / defendant. App|eJlant ^+amp pap&r, and atl&9e5 that^ prepared the soid deed. Learned triaj Court. held that appellant, on 28/04/1? executed an cgreement to set! <I>I<<ICT<OI HIH^^ fe^ <Rl<^« ^^^iT^n^r for +he Gppellant. Advocate for r^spond&nt No.2/Stat^. 1 M.(C.)P.No.669/2005 for grant of stay. No.2€3|2-A/2002 was filed by respondent No.l / the Qpp&llGnt / d&fendcint for specific irmanent injunction on 18.12.20X3 stoting .199^6 agreed to sell the land bearing Khflisro at village Eramsd^i, RI Circie Seepat $.16,0^0/" ond in presence of witnesses after i, he executed the agreenient and gave (nt / pldntiff. Despite legal notice dated |<ecute +h& r^istfired 5al& deed. the suit averment arid pleaded that he condition that respondent / plointjff wid and thereofter1 will return the tand to / defendant admits hi5 signature on respond&nt / plaintiff has fraudulen+ly afterj due appreciation of the evidence on record. )96 rec&ivin9 consideration of Rs.l6/040A, 5uit land and he is entitled for a decree delnied yjear^ ihe XI-HC-22 an^r^r ^nv^ SWI^W podma %^x' •> 3^r ?qpTR;pr, sTft^Fi^, (^ctiy^t ^TM5(Ch ^iini $nii<ft W[ 200 fe^ ^1^?T g^TRTC ^cT tHe of specific performance of Judge, &ilaspur, vide jud9mei^+ suit No.19 A/2003 after r^eorcl/fortifi&dl th& findin9< with some modlfication. Learned counsel for t^ failed +o da+isfy that any second oppeal. From parusal of the reasoning assi9ned by bolh the opinion that no sub^tantk therefore, the second appeal be dismissed and is accordin^ Accordir^ly, M.(C.)P.t1 disposed of. ct»i<<i^i<(l»i^tw^it ^ tec^* <Ri^<i< ^sil^ra^T contract. In 1st appeal, Additional District and decree datad 08.12.2004 pasaed «nCivH ela^orate discussion of mGterial cind evidence on of th& Court b^tow, and dismiss&d the app&al ^e appellant argued the matter at Jength, but 4»bstQntial qued+ion of low is involv&d in the ^cord of Lower Court, material and evid^nce ic Courts below to decide the issues, I am of question of Jaw involves in this second appeal, filed by the cypellont / defendqnt deserves to |ly djs^nissed. .rtto.669/2005 and IA No.t204//2005 stand Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (^§[{^)