1 2025:CGHC:33161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 653 of 2025  Moharram S/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 58 Years Caste Teli, R/o - Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana- Sarsiwa, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dashrath Sahu S/o Samaru Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Harish Kumar Sahu S/o Late Tularam Sahu Aged About 25 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3. Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Late Tularam Sahu Aged About 23 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4. Shanta Wd/o Tularam Sahu, Aged About 47 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5. Rameshwari Sahu D/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 52 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 6. Parmeshwari Sahu D/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 49 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 7. Gangotri Sahu D/o Dashrath Sahu Aged About 42 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Bilaspur, P.H.No. 40, Thana - Sarsiwa, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 14:22:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 07.2025 1. As per order impugned, the Civil Suit No. 97A/2021 pending before Court of Additional Civil Judge Bhatgaon to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Raigarh has already been dismissed on default, whereas, application moved under Section 24 of CPC remained pending. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application has been moved under Section 24 of CPC before the learned Principal District Judge, Raigarh. He would further submit that the learned Court below ought to have decided the application moved under Section 24 of CPC. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed, no order with regard to transfer of Civil Suit can be passed. Thus, the learned Court below rightly rejected the application, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant