1 CGHC010400572024 2026:CGHC:37719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 646 of 2024 1 - Smt. Rekha Sisodiya W/o Late Shri Swarn Singh Sisodiya Aged About 57 Years Appellants Are Resident Of Flat No. 176. First Floor, Dwarika Block, Didwanaiya Residency, Ring Road No. 1, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Flat No. 308 Third Floor, Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Suryansh Singh Sisodiya S/o Late Shiri Swarn Singh Sisodiya Aged About 35 Years Appellants Are Resident Of Flat No. 176. First Floor, Dwarika Block, Didwanaiya Residency, Ring Road No. 1, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Flat No. 308 Third Floor, Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus Smt. Pallavi Shah W/o Ashok Shah Aged About 65 Years R/o- 109 A.T. Plaza, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kaustubh Singh Thakur on behalf of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC") calling in question the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned 5th District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in civil appeal No. 43-A/2023. 2 By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appeal filed by the respondent/s under Section 96 of the CPC was allowed and decree passed by the 5th Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Class- 1 Raipur (C.G.) dated 11.05.2023 in civil suit No. 151-A/2021 was set aside. 2. The impugned decree reads thus as under: “A.वादी एवा प्रति वादीगण के मध्य ग्राम दीरबा पटवार हल्के नंबार 05, हसील के रूदी जिल धम र छ.ग. स्थि#$ खसीर नंबार 406/2 रकेबा 0.24 ह के ल 25833 वाग&फी(ट भू*तिम (वादीग्रा# सीपजि+) बाबा तिनंष्पतिदी पके- ल डीडी 22.06.2016 शू*न्य एवा तिनंष्प्रभूवा घो2ति3 तिकेय ह4। B. वादी एवा प्रति वादीगण के मध्य तिनंष्पतिदी पके- ल डीडी तिदीनंके 22.06.2016 शू*न्य एवा तिनंष्प्रभूवा घो2ति3 तिकेय नं के केरण प्रति वादीगण के2 वादीग्रा# सीपजि+ पर के2ई हके वा अजिधकेर प्रप्त नंह9 ह2ग। C. उ+रवादीगण/ प्रति वादीगण #वाय $ अपल$; / वादी के भू वादी व्यय वाहनं केर=ग।" 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the lease deed executed between the appellants and respondent No. 1 has been declared null and void, the appellants have vacated the suit property and possession thereof has been handed over to respondent No. 1. Thus, in substance, the present appeal has become infructuous. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that possession of the suit property was handed over to the respondent on 14th August, 2026. 5. In view of above, this second appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. All pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H. Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.09.01 15:28:29 +0530