Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12302 (CHH)

S.R. SAHU v. LAXMINARAYAN SHARMA

WP227/239/2024 · 2025-08-13

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:41210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 239 of 2024 1. S.R. Sahu S/o Lt. M.R. Sahu Aged About 68 Years (Age Of The Petitioner No. 1 Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order ) R/o Geetanjali House , Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Usha Sahu W/o S.R. Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Geetanjali House , Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Jageshwari Sahu W/o Brijesh Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Geetanjali House , Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Laxminarayan Sharma S/o Lt. Shri Shivnandan Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o R-2, Vinoba Nagar Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Commissioner Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Tahsildar Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Dhirendra Singh (The Then Patwari) Vill. Ameri, Tah. Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : None. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 2 &: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 08.2025 1. In first round, Mr. Anumeh Shrivatava, Advocate appeared for the petitioners, but in second round there is no representation. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 14.12.2023 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.14 18:19:37 +0530 2 passed in Civil Suit No. 16A/2023 by 2nd Additional District Judge, District Bilaspur, whereby an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was allowed. 3. The order is appealable according to the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, thus, the instant petition is not maintainable. 4. Considering the above-discussed facts, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. 5. Certified copy be returned after retaining its xerox copy. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant