.9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AZ SIna!e Bench : Hon'ble Shri DIIJR Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Second AppeaJ No.24 of 2008 ^;.:. i; -*: Aooeliant Appeilant QnJlrst appeal) Defendant Ka!iu Mjyan aiias Painter, S/o iate Amir Mohammad, aged 60 years, R/o At Falit Lal Jaiswai Bada, behind Suruchi Bhojnalaya, Sadar Bazar, Biiaspur, Tahsi! and DistrictBi!aspur(C.G.) versys Respondent ResRondentlin.first ap&eap Raintiff Smt. Rani Magwanl, W/o Amar Magwani, aged 32 years, R/o Nariyai Kothi, Dayalband, Biiaspur, Tahsll and District Biiaspur (C.G.5 / Second Apseal under Section 100 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counse! for the appeilant. Shri Goutam KhetrapaJ, counsei for the caveator/ respondent. ORAL oh-thjs 23rd day ofAprii, Heard on admlssion. (2) The is by the and decree dated 15-10-2007 passed in Clvil Appea! No.11-A/2007 by the Judge, thejudgment.and decree 05-05- 2007 passed in Civil Suit No.175-A/2005 by the IVth Civil Judge Class- !, Bilaspur. (3) The respondent/pjaintiff had a suit for possession, injunction and against the appellant/defendant cn the ground the appelianVdefendant^ had encroached upors a portion of the suit ad-measuring 80 Sq.Ft. by her.- The Bl m^ •Bt iSI ....-^ -2- appeiianVdefendant resisted the suit cn the ground he was not.In possession of th©suit iand. The trial Court granted a decree for possession, but refused to grant damages. Both the findings recorded bythetrial Court were affirmed in appeal bythe tower Court. (4) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the appeilant/defendant has.not been to create any dent In the findings recorded by the triai Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court. ^ The sald findlngs are pure^ findings of fact. No questlon of law is involved in thls appeal, which is accordingjy dlsmissed at the stage of admissjon. ' ' I Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge