Chattisgarh High Court
Himanshu Sharma vs Smt. Rajkumar Sharma 51 Wps/1355/2018 ... on 5 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
FA No. 570 of 2017
Himanshu Sharma Versus Smt. Rajkumar Sharma
05/03/2018 Mr. B. P. Sharma, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, counsel for respondent No. 1.
Ms. Rashul Bhawnani, counsel for respondent No. 2 & 3.
Heard on application for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially the appellants were parties in the suit land but later on, they were deleted from the array of defandants. It was not brought to their notice that the judgement decree has been passed. Later on, when they came to know that the impugned judgement decree also affects their right in the property in their possession, upon advice, it was decided to file an appeal.
On the other hand, respondent No. 1 opposes the prayer by stating that the application is vague and the applicants had come to know about the impugned judgment decree yet they failed to take appropriate steps promptly to file appeal within a limitation.
Having heard both the parties, taking into consideration the circustances that the applicants were not party to the proceedings in which judgment decree was passed and they came to know about the said judgment decree later on, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is granted two weeks time to make submission in support of prayer for stay of execution of decree.
List this case after 2 weeks.
In the meantime, execution of impugned judgment decree in relation appellants possession in the house in disputed shall remain stayed and appellant's possession in the house shall no be disturbed.
Sd/-
Rohit (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge