1 2026:CGHC:12443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 244 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar S/o Ram Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. (Plaintiff) Appellant(s) versus 1 - Radha Bai (Dead) W/o Chandrapal Through Legal Representatives- Nill 1.1 - Dipak Kashyap S/o Chandrapal Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Kapil Nagar, Prakash Kirana Store, Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 1.2 - Prakash Kashyap S/o Chandrapal Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Kapil Nagar, Prakash Kirana Store, Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 1.3 - Smt. Roshni Kushwaha W/o Vinay Kushwaha Aged About 32 Years R/o Kakori, C.O.D.G.T. Road Kanpur, P.O. Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.) 2 - Parvati Bai W/o Sunder Singh Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Madholi, P.O. Madholi, District Kanpur (U.P.) Present Address- Aharwa Near Saloni Guest House, Kirana Stores, P.O. Harjinder Nagar, Tahsil And District Kanpur (U.P.) 3 - Sudama Bai W/o Ramgulam R/o Behind Madhuban Bagicha Government School, Dayalband Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Bandhulal S/o Ramgulam R/o Madhuban Bagicha, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Sukdev Ramgulam R/o Madhuban Bagicha, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Ashok, S/o Ramgulam (Dead) Through Legal Representative- Nill 6.1 - Smt. Saraswati Maurya W/o Ashok Maurya R/o Madhuban Bagicha, Dayalband, Bilaspur C.G. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.03.16 17:55:44 +0530 2 6.2 - Sudha Maurya W/o Jitendra Maurya, D/o Late Ashok Maurya Aged About 28 Years R/o Ahirwa, Kanpur (U.P.) (Daughter) 6.3 - Warsha Maurya D/o Late Ashok Maurya (Daughter) Aged About 25 Years R/o Madhuban Bagicha, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 6.4 - Raina Maurya Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Representative Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saraswati Maurya, R/o Madhuban Bagicha, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 6.5 - Omi Maurya Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Representative Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saraswati Maurya, R/o Madhuban Bagicha, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 7 - Kishan Dulari Wd/o Baldev (Died And Deleted) Nill 7.1 - Anil Kumar S/o Ram Kumar Aged About 46 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 7.2 - Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Kumar Aged About 42 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 8 - Rukmin Bai W/o Ram Kumar Aged About 46 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For Resp. No. 1A, 1B, 3, 4K & 5 : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No. 7A, 7B and 8 : Mr. Anil Mourya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J Judgment on Board 16/03/2026 1. After advancing arguments at length, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned First Appellate Court has disposed of the appeal by remanding the suit to the Trial Court for adjudication of an issue which had already been framed by the Trial Court, but no finding 3 thereon was recorded while deciding the suit. The Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to adjudicate the following issue: “
या वादीगण मांक 3 से 6 वाद के लं अवथा म व 1999 माह जून म वादभूम से वादीगण को जरल ेदखल कर दये?” 2. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the first appeal, the appellant had preferred two applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 04/02/2021 and on 13/08/2021 for adducing additional evidence. However, without deciding the said applications, the suit was remanded to the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that he has no objection to the remand of the matter insofar as it relates to adjudication of the additional issue. His grievance, however, is that the aforesaid applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been considered while deciding the appeal. He, therefore, prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to raise the aforesaid application, if so required, after the decision of the civil suit, in the event the decision goes against him and the occasion arises to prefer a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. With the aforesaid liberty, the miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul