RAJESH VISHWANATH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 1/12/2022 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.43/2019, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of his suit, has been rejected. The parties shall be referred as per their descriptions before the Court below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 5/2/2016 registered as Civil Suit No.13-A/2016, by submitting inter alia that the land bearing Khasra No.259 was recorded as forest land and the father of the defendant No.4 namely Vishwanath Soni was in possession over 7 & 1/2 decimal of it while constructing a house and, remaining of its portion was utilized by him for the agricultural purposes. It is pleaded further that a survey was made by the Revenue Authorities, wherein it was found that the father of the said defendant was in possession over two acres of said Khasra No.259 along with other persons and subsequently, the said property was re-numbered as Khasra No.259/17 and that for its allotment, a notification dtd. 11/8/2016 was issued while inviting objection in this regard. Further contention of the plaintiff was that he purchased the land in question bearing Khasra No.259/17 from the defendant No.4 by paying sale consideration of Rs.80,000.00 and was in possession thereof since then and as the defendants No.1 to 3 have issued a notice for his eviction, therefore, he has been constrained to institute a suit in the instant nature claiming issuance of permanent injunction against the said defendants from interference of his peaceful possession.

(3.) The aforesaid claim was registered on 5/2/2016 and, thereafter, a notice was directed to be issued to the defendants while fixing the case on 8/3/2016. It appears further that the matter was listed from time to time and vide order dtd. 6/12/2017, it was directed to be listed on 19/1/2018 for plaintiff's evidence and on the said date, the suit was dismissed for non prosecution as neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was appeared.