HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. 239/2011 APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS 2. 3. 4. RESPONDENTS DEFENDAMTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. Kadam Kiinwar, Wd/o Late Jai F(rakash, Caste-Kauwar, aged about 35 years, Occupation -Service Muklesh Kiunar @ Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Jai Prakash, Caste Kaawar, aged about 18 years, Occupation- Agriculture. Ajay Kumar, S/o Late iJai Prakash, Caste-Kanwar, aged about 14 years, Sanjay Kuniar, S/o Late Jai Prakash, Caste-Kaawar, ^ed about 8 years, No. 3 and 4 mmors, through Next fi-iend mother. Kadain Kunwar, No. 1 to 4 AUr/o ViUage Kasra, Soinapara and Charcha CoIUexy, TahsU Baikunthpur, Dist. Koria (C.G.). Shivdayal, S/o Late Bansh Kumar Kanwar, aged about 48 years, Balkunwar Bai, D/o Late Bansh Kuiaar, W/o Indrapal Kanwar, aged about 50 years, Q/^+^ D/r^ V^11n.ft,= _T5^?^o« T<-il^"41 OiJUJ. I\/U V'juUcigC -i3uU.eu., lcili.oll Bakunfhpur, Dist. Koria (C.G.). Baijhal, S/o Late Barpanha Kaawar, aged about 60 years, R/o ViUage Kasra, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.). Pratapnarayaa, S/o Late Barpariha Karrai'ar, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Kasra, Tahsil Baikunfhpur, District Koria (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The CoUector, Koria, Baikuathpur (C.G.). SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THB CODB OF CIVIL PROCBDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.SIiaima, J.) Present:-Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev K. Agrgwal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 5. Respondents No. 1 to 4 not noticed. ORAL- JUDGBMENT (Passedoa 25/07/2011) 1. By this second appeal uudcr Section 100 ofthe Civil Procedure Code agauist the judgment and decree dated 29/4/2011 passed by First Additk>nal District Judge, Maaendragarh at Baikunthpur, District Koria (Baikunttipur) (C.G.) ia ^ -<&-- '^ civU appeal No. 60-A/2010 reversing fhe judgment of declaiation of possession aud injunction passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Baikunfhpur iu civffl suit No. 18-A/2000 vide judgment dated 31/10/2008. Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate for fhe appeUaats aud Mr. Sanjeev K. Agrawal, P,L, for fhe State/respondent No. 5 are heard. Copy ofbofh fhe judginents impugned perused. As per Para-17 ofjudginent of trial Coiut plaiutiff/appeUaut No. 1 herself has speci&caUy deposed that after deatb of hcr busband plaiatiff has dispossessed fix>ni ftie suit properly aud ousted froin the house by fhe defendaat but suitwas decreed on fhe ground fhat aforesaid possession offhe defendant was not siace long tune aad peacefuILy/uninterrupted but by reversiB^ fhe judginent and decree appeUate Court has specificaUy considered fhe statement of fhe appeUaat Kadam Kiuiwar. In Para-23 of the judgiaent which reveal that in Para-18 of her depositi&n she has veiy specificaUy deposed fhat at fhe tiine of preparation of plaint she has specificaUy told and iaformed her counsel that defendaats have dispossessed her and she waats possession of fhe property but reasons best known suit bcfore the trial Court has not been filed for possessfon or consequential reUef of posscssion uiteralia suit for declaration of ownership and possession and pcnnanent iajunction was filed, iu fhese circuinstances svit without consequential reUef of possession was not inatntainable and lowcr appeflate Court has r^hfly reversed fhe judgment aud decree of ftie Court below. VirtuaUy suit ought to have not decreed by the trial Courteven on fhe basis ofits finding in Para-17, I do not find any substaace ia fhe second appeal. Consequenfty, second appeal is liable to be dismissed aad is hereby dismissed. I.A. No. 01 is also disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge </ ^ k"