SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in Plaintiff's second appeal is as under:--

(2.) Questioning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30/09/2003 passed by Second Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Korba in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/2002, this instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC, in which, substantial question of law has been formulated as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below holding that the plaintiff has no title upon the suit land and therefore, he is not a person interested and not entitled for notice and opportunity of hearing under Section 11(3) of the Act of 1960 is perverse being contrary to law and is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High in Saadat Mohammad Khan & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2004 2 MPJR 114, and Bala w/o. Lakhanlal Dubey vs. State of M.P. and others, 2012 4 MPLJ 667.