Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50482 (CHH)

SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WP227/913/2025 · 2025-09-14

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:CGHC:7799 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 913 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Ramkesh Tiwari, aged about 42 Years, Occupation- Service (Secl), R/o Mohalla Godhanpur, Ambikapur, Dist- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Ashok Tiwari, S/o Ramkesh Tiwari, aged about 58 Years, Occupation Businessman R/o Village- Sarhari Thana/ Tahsil Pratampur Dist.- Sarguja (C.G.) --- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Shubham Bajpai, P.L.. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief : 10.1. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Learned Civil Judge Class- I Pratappur District- Surajpur (C.G.) to conclude the Trial proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 07A-2019 within stipulated time frame; 10.2 To grant any other relief which may suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed; 10.3 Cost of the petition May kindly award to the petitioner. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.17 12:02:07 +0530 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Suit No. 07A-2019 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendant before the Civil Judge Class-I, Pratappur, District - Surajpur (C.G.). The suit was filed in the year- 2019 and still the suit is not decided. The plaintiff have closed his evidence. However, the defendant is delaying in the disposal of the civil suit and not examining his witnesses. Therefore, the direction may be issue that the civil suit may be decided within a stipulated period of time. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the dispute is between the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent no.2/defendant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Be that, as it may, this Court is not inclined to exceeds to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish