/ 1 wx wwwwmwmwwmmw ‘ ‘ * ‘ H HIGH COURT OF Cm’I‘TISGARH BILASPUR Second Appeal No.181 of 2009 r39»: {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. Raghvendra Vanna, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. r Singe Bench: Hon’ble Er. T.P. Sh a, J ORAL JUDGMNT (2-7—2009) 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgnent at decree dated 16— 1-2009 passed by the 14th Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.9A/2008 amrming the judgment 8; decree of dismissal of the suit dated 2440—2008 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class~II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 1"1A/ 2008. . Judgment & decree impugned are challenged on the ground that the Court below has not considered the letter written by the Public Odice'r as a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and erred in law in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. . I have heard learnedcounsel for the parties present and perused \\ the judgnent 85 decree impugned as also the judgment & decree of the trial Court and record of the Court below. APPELLANT]: Jagruk Mahila Mandal, (Plaintiff) Kelkarpara, Raipur, Regsu‘ation No.Sa,~Raipur/Raipur/2864, through President Smt. Usha Rajjan Shrivastava, R/o Naharpara, Shrivastava Gali, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS/: 1. Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur, (Defendants) through the Commissioner, Nagar Pahka Nigam, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur (C.G.) ' wmmm $kxmasLwW“WmwwwwW ”7;?> 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit for specific performance on the basis of decision (Sankalp) of nespondent No. 1 to sell the land to the appellant was filed, but on the ground of some technicality the suit was Withdrawn and again second suit was filed on 4~5*2007. Second suit was dismissed on the ground that the alleged decision/Sankalp reveals that after suitable order from the Govemment the sale deed will be executed and the appellant/plaintin‘ has failed to show any document or adduce any evidence to show that permission has been granted by the State Government. Suit was dismissed also on the ground that initially cause of action of the suit arose on 24~ 12-2004 and after withdrawal of the suit it was med on 4—5-2007 although it was tequired to be filed within six months from the date of cause of action in accordance with Section 401 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). The suit was hopelessly barred by lime. The appellate Oourt also dismissed the appeal and amrmed the judgnent & decree of the trial Court. It is not disputed in this case that originally cause of action arose on 24— 12—2004 and the suit was required to be filed within six months in accordance with Section 401 of the Act, but firstly the suit was withdrawn on the gound of some technicality and afterwards it was filed on 4-5—2007. . Firstly the suit was filed on 5-8-2005 after six months of the cause of action arose and after Withdrawal of the suit vide order dated 20‘9—2006 the suit was again filed on 4-5—2007 after more than six months of the alleged withdrawal. Admittedly both 1% & 2nd suits were barred by limitation and the Court has tightly p dismissed the suits as barred by limitation. The present appellant/plaintiff has alleged that the State Government has sanctioned/granted permission for sale & execution of the sale deed vide letter dated 9-4~2002 but the same was not proved by the appellant by adducing necessary evidence. Burden to prove such permission which was sine qua non for execution of sale deed was on the appellant/plaintiff, but the appellant/plaintiff has not discharged his burden and in absence of such proof, the Court below has dismissed the suit on this point also. No alleged ’3 k xmkMw ‘ r ‘’ . document has been filed by the appellant/plaintm' beforQu-ial ’9)' Court. One photocopy was tiled before the trial Court and admittedly this is not admissible in evidence. The appellant/ plaintiff was Iequired to prove the document by calling such officer with the original or to file certified copy of the same, but the appellant/plaintiil" has neither filed xcertiiied copy nor called the omoer to prove the document. . Therefore, in absence of the evidence required to prove the question of permission granted by the State Government the Courts below have n‘ghtly dismissed the suit and also dismissed the appeal. I do not 13nd any substantial question of law involving in the second appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their costs. Advocate fees as per schedule. M” T.P. Sharma Judge "