-^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATB11..ASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri DJIJD Raosaheb Deshmukh. <J. APPELLANTS PLAiNTiFFS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS SecondADpeaS No.361 of 2007 1."a" Tejmati W/o late Jageshar, Aged about 55years. •<. • 2. Alakh S/o Budhram, Aged About 40 years. 3. Sonsai S/o Budhram, Aged about 40 years. 4. Tengana S/o Budhram,aged about 37 years. 5. Sudhari W/o Tiiak, D/o Budhram, Aged about34years. 6. Raini W/o Dhur, D/o Budhram, Aged about32years. i 7. Mudari, W/o Ramnath, D/o Budhram, Aged about22 years; 8. Kendi,W/o Late Budhram, Aged about 70 years. ^ 9. Rajbhawan S/o Rupsai, Aged about 40 years. 10. Seerinarayan, S/o Rupsai,Aged about SSyears. ; A!{ are by caste-Bargaah, Occupation- Agricuiturists, R/o Viiiage Jajagaa, Tahsil Uadaipur, Thana Lakhanpur, DistrictSurguja(C.G.) versus 1. IViohansai S/o Hirdan, Aged about 45 years. 2."a" Smt, Kenaparhin W/o Late Amirsaj, aged50years. 2. "b" Kayaso S/o Late Amirsai, Aged about 24years. 3. Babuial S/o Hirdan, Aged about 35 years. Ali are by caste-Bargaah, Occupation- Agricuiturists, R/o Viliage Jajagaa, Tahsii Uadaipur, Thana Lakhanpur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Cojtector, Surguja, ^ Ambikapur/(C.G.) -iu ^^&^sss^.- l,|filftttfeiiygslnUIAKteri^Afai^U -\ ^-: ^ ii^ ^> ^v Second Appeai under Section 100of C.P.C. Present : Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel forthe appellarits. ORALORDER (Passed on 03rtlSeptember, 2007) Heard on admission. (2) The appeilants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-06-2007 passedby the 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Dlstrict Surguja in Civil Appea! No.33-A/2005 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31-08-2005 passed by the 5th Civii Judge Ciass —!l, Ambikapur,District Surguja in Civil Suit No.146-A/1996 dismissing the suit for permanent jnjunction, was affirmed. (3) The appeilants/pSaintiffs had fiied suit for permanent injunction simpiicitor in whichthe question ofpossession ofthe appeliants/piaintiffs over the suit property on the date of suitwas germane. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appeilants/piaintsffs were not in possession of the suit land on the date of suit. (4) in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determinatlon in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage ofadmission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane "•N,