1 2025:CGHC:55158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 469 of 2018 1 - Ritesh Sharma Late Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bhogahapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1 - Hemant S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Bhogahapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishnakant S/o Late Shri Hari Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Bhogahapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Jangir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Uma Bai, Wd/o Kamalkant, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chandrashekhar S/o Late Kamalkant, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajani Sharma Wd/o Madan Lal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ravikant S/o Late Madan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.11.14 17:33:40 +0530 2 7 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Madan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Rekha D/o Late Madan Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 9 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Office, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Defendants) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 and 4 : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. For State Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 12-11-2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the suit of the appellant for partition of the suit properties have been dismissed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, however, it has been held that there was earlier a partition between the parties with respect to the suit properties. He would also submit that the Nayab Tahsildar Shivrinarayan has passed the order on 18-07-2019 by which the partition of the suit properties by mutation bond have been effected and the appellant as well as other family members have alienated their respective shares of the properties to its respective purchasers. In view of the matter, they have filed application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC on 04- 09-2025, however, by the lapse of time there are some differences arose between the parties and now the parties does not want to press this application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and the appellant wants to withdraw the same in view of the order passed by the Nayab Tahsildar Shivrinarayan dated 18-07-2019 and also the alienation made by the 3 respective parties. 2. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant has not been objected by the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the application I.A.No.03/2025 which is the application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, and the same is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that since in view of the earlier partition and also in view of the order dated 18-07- 2019 the partition of the suit properties have already been effected and the appellant has sold his share of the property obtained in the partition, the appellant does not want to pursue his this second appeal further at this stage and wants to not press the present second appeal, with liberty to take recourse to law if occasion arises. 5. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant is not opposed by the opposite counsel. 6. On due consideration upon the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, the present second appeal is dismissed as not pressed. However, the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to law if occasion so arises. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil