1 2026:CGHC:22736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 474 of 2026 Smt. Rakhi Mishra W/o Late Virendra Mishra Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Budhadev Nagar, Near Vishwas Clinic, Sirgitti, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant. versus K. Bhaskar Rao S/o K. Rama Rao Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. -12, Budhadev Nagar, Ruchika Vihar, Sirgitti Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant : Mr. Yash Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. Heard on application for condonation of delay (IA No.1/2026) in the instant MCC. 2. On due consideration and considering the submission made in the application, delay of 15 days as pointed by the Registry is condoned. The aforesaid application is allowed 3. Heard on admission. 4. This MCC has been filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 44 read with Section 151 of the CPC for permission to file a Second Appeal as an indigent person against the judgment and decree dated 12/01/2026 passed Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 by the Third Civil Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal (B) No. 04/2025, which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27/11/2024 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 208B/2021. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant herein is the wife of the late Virendra Mishra, who died on 17.09.2020. He submits that the late Virendra Mishra was not the owner of the subject land admeasuring Rakba 2520 square feet out of Khasra No. 754/2, situated at Mauja Sirgitti, Bilaspur, but the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the appellant on the ground that her husband had obtained Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakh) through cheque bearing No. 305766 dated 06.03.2020 from the respondent in respect of an agreement to sell the subject land. He submits that the courts below have not appreciated the facts and record in the proper perspective. He also submits that the appellant is residing in modest accommodation and is struggling to meet basic livelihood expenses, therefore, the case may be admitted for hearing. 6. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the first Appellate Court shows that the husband of the appellant/defendant, the late Virendra Mishra, entered into an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff by stating that he had finalized a "Pakka Sauda" with the Gupta family to purchase the subject land. It was also observed by both the courts below that Rs. 3 Lakh had been received by the husband of the appellant through the aforesaid cheque. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial court granted a decree in favor of the respondent to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to Rs. 3 Lakh with interest at 6% p.a. The finding and decree of the trial Court were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court in the appeal. 3 7. Hence, considering the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court and also considering the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the appellant. 8. Accordingly, this MCC is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay