-^^ JSiS ^s --^^ v^y A®0-"' l^a"" SingIeBench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JU0ICATURE CHHATFISGARH AT BIL&gPUR SECONDAPPEALNO; <?CM / 200&{S.B.) A&oellafit ^J^ft^ Versus Kesnondetits ^—*~^—-JZ-.-j Ae.^-e^'si > 3. SECOND AF>&EAL U/& 0 .AtturKhan S/0 Sikfaandar Khars Aged about 63 years, S/o ViBa^ Ambagarh Chowld, Tehsil - Ambagarh 4: '. E>isi£'^'Ra}riandgaon-(C.G.) Sauyay Sin^i S/a Lal Bhishin Qeo Shah, Aged aboutSO years Sanjiv Shafa S/o Lal &]bishni Deo Shah, .Sged atwut 32 years, Bbth R,/Q ViHage Amba^rh Chowki,TehsiI - Atnliagarh Chowtd, &i?t : Kajnandgaon- State Of ehhattisgafh Through — C^oHeetor R^naiu^aiQn-(C.G^ ; CGDE III!! XI-HC-78 'S^ •^WM-t{,wSwie, Ricii'My ___S'-A'^fr <11<4dl sb^lich 7> •{•'••••"••^•f'1^'• ^ 200^, 3TT^?Tq^; (l°tt^q^ff) an^rq^R^i.* (iSlT3II^Tsb*l W<ITWHfer3I?^T 22/01/2007 Shri Anoop Majumdar, couns Shri AkhilAgrawal, Panel La' Heard onadmission. The appellant/plaintiff hereii^ dated 24-03-2006 passed by the Civil Appeal No. 47-A/2005 whereb^ passed by the Civit Judge Class -I, dismissing the plaintiffs suit was affii|med. The appellant-plaintiff hereirl the respondents' No. 1 & 2/defendj executed by Lal Bhishm Dev <tii'iif<i<fl-i iiiinTfffei^)'<Ri«i< % 3l1^T SilSRT lel for the appellarit. fvyer for the State/respondent No.3. hd is aggrieved by the judgment and decree Additionai District Judge, Rajnandgaon in the judgment and deoree dated 29-09-2004 Ambagarh Chowki in Civii Suit No. 5-A/2004 filed a Civil Suit No. 5-A/2004 for directing ants to execute the jegistered sale deed on the basis of an un-registered docurtient dated 03-08-1989 alleged to have been hah, father of the respondents N0.1 8c 2/defendants. The respondents No. 1 & ^/defendants were proceed ex parte in the lower Court. However, since the a()pel]ant/plaintiff failed.to prove the execution of fhe agreement dated 03-08-19^9 by Lal Bhishm Dev Shah, fhe suit was dismissed. In Civil Appeal No. 47-| lower Court was affirmed. Shri Anoop Majumdar, iearr| I.A. No. 4009/2006 whioh is an app| fV2005 judgment and decree passed by the |ed counsel for 'the appellant was heard.on lication under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for bringing on record the affidavit of on^ Ranjeet Singh. The appellant/plaintiff had sufficient opportunity of doing so ncjt oniy before the lower Court but also before the first Appellate Court. The app^Ilant/plaintiff having failed to do so, 1 am not inclined to grant the prayer spught ir| Accordingly, the application the application at this stage. A. No. 4009/2006 is dismissed. 1 have perused the recorcf of Civil Suit No. 5-A/2004 as also the un-registered document dated 03-0i by the appellant/plaintiff before the| dated 03-08-1989 which bore the d -1989. I have also perused the evidence led lower Court. That portion of the document ianature of the executor has been eatsn b P.T. XI-HC-78 SfI^TWR-fi* gwsn^TgiiiNi t6 \;. Tuniane <e c- ISf '<tnW^,W^W , fslcll+iy *ll*lMl Sh*llth ^200 3Ti^?r 'raw (^cil^ai^sr) s^iim^itTsn^T -•^. ^ ^ ^ 'S ants. The appellanVpiaintiff did ni prove the execution of document appellant/plaintiff also did not testifi Bhishm Dev Shah. In this view of the matter, tt~ of the document Ex.P./l by LaiBhi therefore wholly justified in dismis^ Appeliate Court, therefore, can alscfl Having thus cpnsidered circumspection 1 am of the conside| is involved in this appeal. • In th'e result this appeal is shall be no order as to costs. . In view ofthe above, lvl.(C] and I.A. No. 4008/2006 for amendn] »i'iiFfi<fl-<iii<-iTffteI^t<Ri^;i< i?srf^T3TrSCT 3t examine the sun/iving attesting witness to ?y La! Bhishm Dev Shah. Not only this, the that the document Ex.P./1 was signed by Lal |ere was no lega! evidence to prove execution shm Dev Shah. The learned lower Court was ing the suit. The finding recorded by the first not be faulted v>fith. the aforesaid circumstances with utmost •ed opinion that no substantiai question of law dismissed at the stage of admission. There ).P. No. 1530/2006 for grant of interim relief icnt also stand disDosed of. DiUpRaosahebDeshmukh ludge P.T.O.