1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

FA No. 320 of 2017

•

Kamal Kedia S/o Abirchand Kedia Aged About 51 Years R/o R-8,

Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Age Of The Appellant Is Not

Mentioned In The Cause Titile Of The Impugned Order But Is Being

Done In This Memo Of Appeal, Name Of The Father Of The Appellant Is

Also Wrongly Mentioned As Amirchand In The Cause Title Of The

Impugend Order And Which Is Accordingle Corrected Hereinabove,

Address Of The Appellant Mentioned In The Cause Titile Of The

Impugned Order Is Also The Old Address And Therefore The New And

Correct Address Is Being Mentioned Hereinabove. ..... Def. No. 2,

Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Dr. Meghraj S/o Sri Khillumal Ramnani Aged About 79 Years R/o Mamta

Maternity Home, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Age And Complete Address Of The Res. No. 1 Is Not Mentioned In The

Cause Title Of The Impugned Order But Is Being Done In This Memo Of

Appeal ....... Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh

2. Anupam Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Anupam Nagar, Tehsil/

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..... Def. No. 1, District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

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

For Appellant

:

Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate.

For respondent No.1

:

Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr.

Advocate with Mr.Sourabh Sahu,

Advocate.

Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate has

been appointed and appeared as

Commissioner.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

08-12-2021

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree

dated 7-4-2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur

(CG) in Civil Suit No.45-A/2002 whereby learned trial court has allowed the

2

claim of the plaintiff ie., respondent No.1 and held as under:

(i)

It is declared that the sale deed dated 6-11-

1998 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour

of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff,

being void ab initio;

(ii)

Plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs.25 lacs only to

the defendant No.2 towards cost of

improvement made during pendency of appeal,

within a period of one month from today.

(iii)

Defendant No.2 shall handover possession of

the suit property to the plaintiff within a period

of three months;

(iv)

In the facts and circumstances, parties shall

bear their respective costs”.

2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 31-7-2017 has stayed the effect

and operation with respect to the possession part of the decree is

concerned. During pendency of this first appeal, appellant and respondent

No.1 have settled their dispute and compromise application under Order 23

Rule 1 and 3 of the CPC was filed by the appellant and respondent No.1 on

5-7-2021 and relevant portion thereof is extracted below:

1.

That, the respondent No.1, as plaintiff, had filed

the instant suit based on his claims on the shit

plot situated at Shri R3am Nagar Scheme

Phase-2, (Anupam Nagar), Raipur bearing plot

No.R-8 area admeasuring 7765 square feet.

2.

That, the respondent No.2 has not yet appeared

in the instant appeal however this makes no

difference for the purpose of this application as

the respondent No.2 was contesting against the

respondent No.1 and was just supporting the

case of the appellant and as such had no

independent say apart from the case of the

appellant.

3.

That, the appellant and the respondent No.1

have

now

entered

into

a

settlement/com,promise and in lieu of which the

appellant has paid an amount of Rs.2.0 crores

(Rs. Two crores) to the respondent No.1”.

3

3. In pursuance of the compromise arrived at between the appellant and

respondent No.1, this court vide its order dated 22-10-2021 has directed

that the appellant and respondent No.1 shall appear before the Additional

Registrar (J) before thi