Shop No 831 B Market Bhllai, Tahsil and District Durg (C G ) {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of CiVil Procedure 1908} Present Mr Rajeev Shrrvastava counsel forthe. appellant . ‘ ._ u 1‘ ,viy‘j I Mr Rakesh Kumar Jha Deputy Govt Advocate for the State/ respondent v Sinqle Bench: Hon’bleMr. T.P. Sharma, J .ORAL JUDGMENT (9 11-201 0) 1 The appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the Judgment & decree dated 14 1O 2003 passed by the 8m Additional District Judge ‘(F.T.C.), Durg in CiVil Appeal No.26A/2002 affirming the Judgment & decree dated 9—2-2001 passed by the 15"Civil JUdge Class-ll, Durg‘inwi'r” 7"“ i Civil Suit No.222A/2DOO, whereby the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed against the respondent herein and one Maandas (since deceased), who died during the pendency-of first appeal,‘has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge Class-ll. 2. As per pleading of the parties especially the plaint of the appellant: herein the appellant herein is owner and was in possessmn of the swt property bearing plot No.103, Sheet No.71-A, 203 sq.mtr., Situate at Village Sikola which was, as per pleadings of the appellant, subSequently leased out‘by the respondent .herein to~ deceased Maandas. i Afterpv.) v affording opportunity of hearing to the. parties, learned Civil Judge Class- . ll has dismissed the suit, same Was challenged in appeal before the , e a lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court:has also dismissed the appa el. ‘ Second Appeal No.347 of 2004 1 APPELLANTI: . - Mohanlal Slo Late Shri Foolchand (Appellant)! Patam aged about 63 years (Plaintiff) v Occupation Busmessman Rlo Durg, r Presently R/o Sector-ll Road No5 Versus ’ RESPONDENT/2 ‘. Stale of Chhattisgarh, Through (Defendant)/ ‘ Collectdr, Collectorate, Tahsil and (Defendant) , District Durg (C G ) v, 2 ‘ @ .,4 ,x . I have heard learned counsel for the partles perused the Judgments and records of both the Courts below ‘ . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant herein has I also claimed relief that during the pendency of suit the respondent herem be debarred from leasmg out the land to other person ' . Admittedly, the respondent herem re original defendant N02 has not leased out the property to any other person dunng the pendency of sutt or after deCISIon of the swt Virtually, the substantial claim of the appellant was against one Maandas who died during the pendency of first appeal The appellant herem has not made substantial clalm against .the respondent herem ' ' ' . Consequently, l do not frnd any substantial questton of law for the deCISIon of this appeal The appeal Is liable to be dismissed and it Is hereby dismissed at the admrssron stage Itself No order as to costs l r r l, 3.”. 7 / T.p. SHARMA Judge