1 2025:CGHC:27658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 533 of 2021 1 - Vifal Singh S/o Jagarnath Singh Aged About 52 Years Caste - Gond, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village Kamalpur, Police Station - Surajpur, Tahsil – Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Sukhli Bai D/o Jaypal Aged About 55 Years Caste - Kumhar, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village Kamalpur, Police Station - Surajpur, Tahsil - Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner/defendant No.1 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff For Respondent No. 2/State : : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record of the case for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) and allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and application for condonation of delay. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.06.26 12:05:10 +0530 2 2. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that an application moved by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.05.2016 and Misc. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2021. He would contend that the petitioner may be permitted to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 176A/2002 dated 23.01.2003 before the Competent Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/plaintiff and Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No. 2/State would oppose. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. D.N. Prajapati, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer duly constituted appeal before the competent Court. It is expected that the concerned Court will decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law. 6. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti