SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
TULSI – Appellant
Versus
DURGA PRASAD – Respondent
CR 5/2021



Advocates:
['RITESH VERMA', '', 'SOMNATH VERMA', 'A G', '', 'C K KESHARWANI', 'ANUKUL BISWAS']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Civil Revision No.5 of 2021

1. Tulsi, aged 61 years, son of Sodhuram,

2. Chandrika alias Tarachand, aged 54 years, son of Sodhuram,

3. Rajan, aged 52 years, son of Sodhuram,

4. Mangalchand, aged 50 years, son of Sodhuram,

5. Indra, aged 57 years, daughter of Sodhuram,

All above are residents of Champa Hanuman Chowk, Dewangan Para,

Rani Road, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh

6. Sakun Bai Dewangan, aged 66 years, daughter of Sodhuram, wife of

Doman Prasad Dewangan, resident of Village Suretha, Tahsil and

District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

7. Kamla Bai Dewangan, aged 58 years, daughter of Sodhuram, wife of

Dhaneshwar Prasad Dewangan, resident of Village Choriya Sahu,

Mohalla Choriya, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh

8. Vimla Bai Dewangan, aged 46 years, daughter of Sodhuram, wife of

Mahadev Dewangan, resident of Village Sothi, Tahsil Sakti, District

Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

---- Applicants

versus

1. Durga Prasad, aged 35 years, son of Noharsai Dewangan,

2. Ram Kumar, aged 30 years, son of Noharsai,

3. Santosh Kumar, aged 23 years, son of Noharsai,

4. Kumari Nand alias Chorhin, wife of Noharsai,

All above are residents of Fokatpara, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District

Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Malti Bai, aged 37 years, wife of Dilchand Dewangan, resident of

Barchhapara, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh

6. Shanti Bai, aged 33 years, wife of Baraturam Dewangan, resident of

Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

7. Lalit Bai, aged 31 years, wife of Bharatlal Dewangan, resident of Sakti,

Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

8. Narayan Prasad, aged 54 years, son of Dwarpal Dewangan, resident

of Hanuman Chowk, Dewanganpara, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District

Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

9. Horilal, aged 52 years, son of Dwarpal Dewangan, resident of Barrier

Chowk, Premchand Bada, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh

10.Sushila Bai, aged 55 years, wife of Kamalchand,

2

11.Pappu, aged 35 years, son of Kamalchand,

12.Bali, aged 30 years, son of Kamalchand,

13.Ku. Puja, aged 20 years, daughter of Kamalchand,

No.10 to 13 are residents of near Majhli Talab, across the Railway

Line, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

14.Smt. Rajni Bai, aged 48 years, wife of Kaushal Prasad Dewangan,

daughter of Dwarpal Dewangan, resident of Choriya, Tahsil Champa,

District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

15.Radha Bai, aged 68 years, daughter of Sodhuram Dewangan, resident

of Baigapara, behind Police Station, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh

16.Savitri Dewangan, aged 64 years, daughter of Sodhuram Dewangan,

wife of Beniram Dewangan, resident of Near Halwai Chowk, Baloda,

Tahsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicants

:

Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate

For Respondents No.1 to 8

:

Shri C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate

For Respondents No.9 to 16

:

None, though notices are served

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board

12.5.2022

1.

Heard on I.A. No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the instant

revision. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No.1, it is allowed and

delay of 215 days in filing the revision is condoned.

2.

Also heard on admission.

3.

The instant civil revision has been filed against the order dated

5.3.2020 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Janjgir in

Execution Case No.57 of 2017, whereby the Court below has

rejected the application moved under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code

of Civil Procedure.

4.

Before the Executing Court, vide the aforesaid application under

Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, on the basis of a compromise, it was

3

prayed that the execution proceeding may

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top