Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 9]

Chattisgarh High Court

B.C.Banchhor vs Smriti Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti 8 ... on 29 January, 2018

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            FA No. 163 of 2016

(Arising out of judgment dated 30.8.2014 in Civil Suit No.13A/2011 of the learned
                       2nd Additional District Judge, Durg)

                  Judgment Reserved On : 27/11/2017
                  Judgment Delivered On : 29/01/2018

    B.C. Banchhor S/o H. R. Banchhor, Aged About 43 Years R/o
     22/3 East, Nehru Nagar Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg
     Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

  1. Smriti Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg,
     Through President Smriti Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bhilai,
     Tahsil And District Durg

  2. Som Bhatt, S/o Madanlal Bhatt, Aged About 30 Years
     Membership No. 98, Plot No. 648/2, Street No. 39, Smriti Nagar
     Junwani, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Satish Chandra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate.

C A V ORDER

1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2014 passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.13-A/2011 as well as against the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the same Court dismissing the 2 appellant's review application.

2. The appeal was heard on maintainability of the first appeal insofar as it challenges both, the original judgment and decree as well as the order in review.

3. Insofar as challenge to the maintainability of the appeal against the order passed in review application on 2.2.2016 is concerned, Rule 7 of Order 47 would squarely cover the field inasmuch as the provision clearly provides that an order of the Court rejecting the application (for review) shall not be appealable, but an order granting application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting application or in an appeal from the decree or the order finally passed or made in the suit. Thus the appeal is not provided under the Code against the order rejecting the review application. The present appeal insofar as it assails the order passed by the trial Court on the appellant's review application, is not maintainable.

4. The present appeal shall now be continued only against the main judgment and decree passed on 30.08.2014.

5. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability is accordingly decided in the above stated terms.

Sd/-

Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve