lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH : BILASPUR Wlit Petition (227) No. LL53 of20-09 Petitioners 1. Vijay Knmar, aged 30 years, S] o V.P.Khote. Respondents Defendants Smt. ’l‘iharinbai, aged “about 50, W/o V.P.Khote w Both R/o lndila Bihar Bilaspur. Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Korla Sai Baba, aged 49 yrs (wongly mentioned in CC), S/o Korla Bangamm, R/o B 444 Nehm Nagar, Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. Gudimetla Venketesh, aged about 68 years, S/o Shri Jagannath Bramhan, Rio Bangalipara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus , Respondents 1. Sameer Singh. aged 36years, S/o Vijay Appellant Kumar Singh, R/o Geetanjali Nagar, Karbala Piaintiffs Road, Biiaspur (C.G.) Sudhiya Bai, aged 55 yxs, D/o Mansharam. Siyabai, aged about 41 yls, Wd/o Suresh Kumar. Sanjay K'umar, aged 15 years, Sfo Suresh Knmar, Minor‘under the Guardian Ship of mother Siyabai. 4A. Smt. Bhagwati Sahu, 50 yrs. Wd/o Kishore Sahu. ’ - 4B. Umesh Knmar Sahu, aged 16 yrs, S10 Kishore Kumar minor through Guardian mother Bhagwati Sahu 5. Chandra Kishore, aged 27 yrs. S/o Jugal Kishore 6. Ashok, aged 22 yIS, S/o Jugal Kishore. 7. Malti, aged 20 years, D/o Jugal Kishoxe. A11 (‘2 to 7) are by cast Sahu, Rio Pachari Ghat Juna Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondents 8. Parass Ram, aged 48 years, S/o Defendants ' Pmbhudayal. 9. Parmanand, aged 5 years, S/ o Prabhudayal. _ Phoolseri, aged about 43 years, D/o Prabhudayal; 11. Dulsen‘, aged Prabhudayal. 12. Phuha, aged about 38 years, D/o Prabhudaysl. All ('8 to 12), RIO Village Chantidih, Tah 8r, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 13. Gayaprasad, aged about 55 yrs, S/o Baldeop‘rasad, R/o Gondpara, Bilaspur, Distt. / Bilaspur. Anjana Mulakarwar. aged 55 yrs,‘ W/o Basant Mulkarwar (wongly mention in CC), R/o Dayalband Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.) ‘ a os 9‘: about 40 years, D/o 4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Saiish K. Agnihou'i J.) Slln Radhe Shyam Gupta, Advocate for the peuttoners. Shri Axvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 18. x\, ORDER. (Passed on this 27‘1“ Day of February, 2009) The petitioners, (who were defendants No. 15, 16, 17 and 18 befoxe the uial Couxt in Civil Suit No. 42—A]2006) by this petition udder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the cider dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P] 1), passed by the 8th Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 6—A/ 2008 (Samer Singh V's. Sudhia Bai 8a others). The bn'ef facts in nutshell axe that the respondent Not 1 ($ameer Singh) filed an application under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to tile appeal against the judgment and decree dated 0.2.2007 (Annexure Pf7), passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-1, Bilaspur ill-Civil Suit No. 42» A] 2006. The submission of the appellant before the court below Samj Bai. aged about yrs, Bilaspur. . Kumar Sindhi, R/o Tarwa, , 50 W/o Not Gopi Bai, aged about years, kuown, R/o Torwa, Bilaspur. 45 W10 Sukial, Suhana Bai, aged about yrs, Bilaspur. Rlo Chamidih, Bilaspur, Distt. through Collector Siate of Chhat‘tisgarh, Bilaspur. ‘ 28, S/o Lakhanlal Ompxakash Navrang, aged Vihar, SECL Bilaspur Navrang, Rio Vasant Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur. , 36, Sio Jaitram 20. Laminarayan Dhruv, aged Road. Biiaspur, Dhnlv, R/o Kaxbala Tab 81. Distt Employad at SECL Bilaspur, Bilaspur C.G. 30 Slo T.R. Sahu, 21. Shyamlal Sahu, aged yxs, Employed at R/ o Pachan'gaht' Juna Bilaspur & Distt Bilaspur C.G. ' SECL Bilaspur, Tah was that he was in physical possession of tbs land in dispute since the year 1995. As he was not arrayed as a pany— det'endant before the tn‘al Court, therefore, as soon as he got the knowledge of the judgment and decreel"dated 8.2.2007 in mspect of the land in possession of him, :Sasscd by the trial Court, he tiled the appeal along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in hling the appeal. The answering mspondents befoxe the Court below tiled their leply opposing the application tiled under Section 96 of the C.P.C. and the application for condonation of delay, submitting that the appellant was never in possession of the land in dispute. One Sundan‘a Bai had tiled a case for possession. When the land in dispute is said to have been purchased by the appellant (respondent No. 1), at that time when the case hled by Sundarja Bai was pending. It was also stated that the co—purchaser of the property was not made a party in the appeal. Earlier a case was pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer wherein the appellant (respondent No.1) was party to the proceeding. Thus, the appellant was having the knowledge of pendency ofthe case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appellant was respondent No. 12 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/ 98 (Annexure P/ll), which was died in regard to the land in dispute thus the appellant was having the knowledge of Civil Suit No. 61-A/ 90 and thereby it may be presumed that he was also having the knowledge of the pencency of the Civil Suit No. I ‘\, 7 42—A/ 2006. He furth€r submits that the impugned order dated 9.5.2008 is not a spealdng order. 5. ' I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the docnts appended thereto. 6. It is apparent hat in regard to the land Khasra No. 4, suated at village~ Lingiadih, district — Bilaspur various s proceedings Le. Civil Suit No. 42-A/2006 (Sudhia Bai as cums s. Pams 85 others), Civil Suit No. 61-A/ 90, Execution Case No. 61-A/9 (Sundaiia ai as others Vs. Paiasran as others), Civil Suit No. 70-A/98, Misc. Civil Appeai No. 14/98 ijay Kumar 8r. others s. Keja Bai 8r, others) were initiated y diEerent parties se possession, decimation of title and land injunction on various part of the . 7. It is also parent that the appe was not party t the proceeding in Civil Suit No. 42-A/ 2006 (Sudhia Bai 8r. others Vs. Parasr 85 others), wherein judgment and decree was assed on 8.2.2007 (Annexure P/7). Thus, the appt (respondent No. 1) did t have an opportunity to put forward his case before the trial Court though, the disputed property allegedly was in possession of the appant (respondent No.1). What is the natur of the property and how it has come in posssion of the appellant (respondent No.1) was to be examined by the trial Court before the decree was passed. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the Court below has rightly exercised its power in favour of the appellant (respondent No. 1) by granting him permission to file appeal. The order is unexceptional, just and proper, warrants nowinterference. ume t of 6 it V mm o B i (V V b eking ap llant o am p ellan no ell e es It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supexvisory jun'sdiction should reiiain itself from interfexing with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, inegularity or juxisdlctional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present caSE . 9. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and T- 74—,mm Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge the same is dismissed at motion stage. V ‘ 1 t , 1, t l l ' 1 i 1