-I ±. tt1|c|cfldT 3BET csil||d||c1ST tOCcTl-d1d|<& Rlril^y^ ^Ea.tH'.) S.A. No. t7 5 ^t / 2009 (S.B.t /^ftcTcT RfEft, anpquf ^. ^t gj^ ri^d^d RfEft, ^H pPPTT 41 ^, f?RRft- ^R! ®TRT ^ Wq^, q^ift ^te, ^ter, dg'dld-^ter. f^TcTT- Rpll'Hij,'; (®.7T.) .3fiTlcfi«iTT/ylcicii<n g5. 2 R'tocEi .^" 1^ «frT(ft ^,^TT ^ ^T<TT, ^rRr ^ft «ft£R i^n, Picii^41-^tcrr, flg'tTld ^tST. (u|<tl—Rc|l't1lj,'< (^-7T.) 3.. ^rt^T f^TEft, Sll^ul W. CSdld. piqi'tfl—^fuPT ^PR. ^?T-T ^ TTRT ST^cTcRT, Rjldl—ulful^D^^NT (®.7T.) ....ciiR°l1/*scn<ciiRoTI .....ylciqicn ^.2/dCCKCllcfl \^' ffitcfl'y SpftcT STcldfcT EJTCT 1 O O oZT.tT.'CT. d^<»tyicp^T—fSr£ifRcl <»<l<41ci2T ^ccp 73 O/— ^•-id ysisr 3i^\ci sd<i<yic)<y si^xL-ft^ ^l^ir Ra^i di'yi ^i vs T^cfl'y 3piteT <Hiofcn<y 3Teft5T?er caiiiAiiri<y ^gsr arirz' ..f' «• <^! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Appeal No. 458/2009 Appeilant Respondents Versus Shital Sindhi Smt. Pushpa Bai Gupta and another. Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. ORAL ORDER (18.01.2010) The matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No.1, for condonation of delay in filing the aj^eal. According to the office report the appeai is barred by 542 days. Notice on this interim application for condonation of delay was issued to the respondents, though none appears Tor the respondents. (2) Heard learned counsel for the appellant on condonation of delay in filing the second appeal. (3) it is not in dispute that to challenge the judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2008, $he appellant had earlier preferred Second Appeai No.187/2008. The said second ^apeal was dismissed on 06.08.2008 by the following order: "Learned counsel for the appellants sought permission of this Court to wjthdraw ttiis appeal with Siberty to raise the objectton before the Executing Court in view of Lachhobai Rathore Vs. Reaistered Shri Murti God Mdan Mohanii Maharai 1987 M.P.RC.J.23. (2)' ln view of the submission made, the appeal is -', dssmissed as withdrawn. The appellants is at liberty to take . ^ such steps as are availabte to him under the law." Ws^vs?'' 3&:/.."^ eaA -3- (4) Thereafter, the a^ellant moved an appltoation raising objection before the Executing Court, and the said objectton was dismissed on 23.10.2009. Acxarding to the a^ellant, the deiay in filing the appeal has taken piace s'mce the appellant has moved an objection before the Executing Court. (5) In the opinion of this Court, the present second appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that the eariter Second Appeal No.187/2008 was withdrawn by the appellant Shital Sindhi. The liberty was only to raise the objection before the Executing Court and not for reviving the appeal. (6) Even otherwise, the appellant has suffered a decree tor eviction by both the courts below who have recorded concurrent findings against the appetiant that he has failed to pay rent to the plaintiff/landlord and that the appellant has also denied the wmership of the landlord on the suft premises. It is ateo found concurrentiy by the Court below that the appeltant is in need of premises for reconstruction. (7) ln the opinion of this Court, since the second appeal is n<rt maintainable, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. -—— prashant Kumar M.shra Judge Bin