fe \ rL. ^ S.A.NO CimiATlISGARH 3o<° /M05 ^: 'l-^1: ^. J? APFEtl.ANIS PLAINTBBTS^ ^ ^^ 'S^J^ .A%? ,y <y. '^ RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS &> •-^' f.-J' ^o' ^T^^'^^^ ..«,•'?.^ ^s-'' ^. G. 1] PimamchaiidSharmaS/o.SMvnamSsaii Aged about 35 years, Qccupation- Pan §hop 2} Smt. Bimlabai W/o Punamchand, Aged aboutSOyears, Both R/o, Near CN Bus Stand, Kandrapara, Bemetara, Tah. - Bemetata, Distt.-DiKg(CX£) VERSUS 1] Nandlal TiwanS/a Siecmandait, age3 . ...,aB@ut •. .45 , years, , Qccitpatiem! ^g^iGHttiBEisfc R/o. Village - Jiya, Tfth. - ^BemfiiaFa[e;Bistt.-:E)urg(C..G.) j .»• ( I¥eseat?S^o.- BrahmanpaFa, near ^ijad ehowfc/RaipuB- (C.G.) JZ] ^State (rfGhhattisgarh, TKrough: GoHector Durg, DistriGt Diirg (CG.) SEGOND APPEAL UNDERSECTIONKX) OF OVIL FROCEDURE CODE r^ 4 XI-HC-78 nwv>r;S^cfW 'dwl '•ywiri'tlt u>'^l<«<i<»,i&i*»i'My{ ^_ Se-c^^ A^l^ ^'^l^ ^?OQ 3n^CT^(<i^fg^s) 3II^?rwRii<n ?|aiT3H^IiFtrtW waTWORd 3lACT 21,10,2005 Shri Manoj Paranjpe,cou^ Shri PKC Tiwari, 5enior <bl<lfri4)')tlll<riT^"ls><l'<Ritsit ygif^HSii^T " ;' sel for the appellants. Advocate with Shn Raja Sharma, counsel for reqiondent No.l. Shri J& Bajpai, ©over^iment Advocate for the State / respondent No.2. I ^ Heard learned counsel foi| the appelkxntdon admission and both the parties on M.(<;.)P.No.906/2(|l05. RespondentNo.l / Pbinti^f Nandlal Tiwari filed a suit agairist oppellonts for possession of ^uit land bearing Khaisra No.1217/4 admeaajring 0.17 acres and me^ne profit claiming himself, to be •the title-holder of the suit loaid and being diq>ossessed by the appellants. Appellants denied all the conte^itions of -ttie plaint anci^pleaded that they are in possession of those have not dispossessed responder|t No.l. A Commission for local ini trial Court and on the directionl denlarcation of suit land and adj DhruV, Revenue Inspector. The lands wtiich they have purchased and v^stigation had been appointed by the |of Commissioner Shri MSShandalya, (olning lands have been dpne by M.C |trial Court vide'judgnientond decree ^7 XI-HC-78 yCT|nyi.!.jict^,t»TSI<i<i«,^6feiia<'tty< '! TCT^a?TT^ sn^sTtRfER('^l-jci.y) sii^iwl^iN? gaiT3II^?T**li* ^- ?^ITW«RidSI^Sf dcrted 11.08.2003 allowedthe possed a decree of possession. decree, filed anappeat bearing Judge Bemetara vide judgment the trial Court ond remonded thi of the suit on merit after and after his examination.MC D| be,examined by the trial Cour-tt Court again vide judgment and suit in fwour of respondent Nc^ the judgment and decree Sn Additional bistrict Judge 12.04.2005, affirmed the decre4 that judgment and decree, thl's theC.,P,C., hos been fjled. slLiit Itio sumjnoning aplpeal Bemetara After going through the the argument advanced by the c opirtion that .this appeal invi •*ld<<i<S)'1*ll*jril'^Is'd^Riitsiv ifrail^TSllSCT v 4iit in favour of respondent No.l dnd ]The appellants, being aggrieved by the ).35-A / 98. The Additional District [lated 03.10.2002, setaside decree of case back with a direction to dispose MC bhruv, Revenue Inspector hruv died in an accidentand couldnot Wfthout his examindtion, the trial decree dated 11.08.2003 decicled the j.l. Thereafter appellanjts challenged and in oppeal No-32-A / 2003, vide 'judgment and decree dated of trial Court. Being aggrieved with jSecond Appeal under Section 100 of 'ecords and taking into consideration lunsel for the appellonts, I am of the Ives sub^omtial question of law. Q? XI-HC-78 tdwl^l l^eN<,w€hi<K»,twgmig^ *ir*taAI?ffi?WW an^STq^ ('jcitgq^) ^I^gSOQ 3II^CTwRii«ff; tiaiTaii^?Tfl'*fi<n Padma •b ^ 9_ey. '''3-^ • boundaries of •ffie suit lomd are 1 of the opinion that to resolve is essentkxl as the eorlier one without the evidence of M.C. DHi substantial question of law is an^ destroyed and not in existence, I am t+ie dispute a freshlocql investigation l^aving objection cannot be acted upon jruV who is now dead. Accordingly the Iwered. / In the result, the appeal decree as wetl as judgment and ond the case is renKinded back fresh Commission forjocal jnve^tigati the suit land be issued and afterl lawful shall bedisposed of afresh on \\ Commissions expenses. Parties to appear before positively. NQ fresh noticeshal cooperate with the Court. The possible. Pdrtiesto beartheir own< 4'!tfto41')HI*lc>T^T"|s>cl'<RltSfi ^ail^TSII^OT ^allowed/ the impugned judgment and Jecree ofl the ^rkxl Courtare set aside to trial Court with a direction thcrt a jtigation to determine the location of admission of the samethe suit ^sown merit. Appelkints to bear the We trial Court on 17th November 2005 be issued to the parties. They shall C|ourt shall decide the case as early as osts; Sd/- ~~- y-K.Shnvastava Judge