Smt.Kamla Bai And Others v. Raipur Pustikar Samaj Trust And ORS.

@ NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH. BILASPUR M. A. No. 636 OF 2006 1.

Smt. Kamla Bai, aged about 75 years, wife of Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey resident of Budheshwar Mahadeo Mandir, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2.

Dev Mani Pandey, aged about 54 years, son Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, resident of Near Duttatraya Mandir, Bramhapuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ^^^ 3.' Raj Mani Pandey, aged about 51 years, son Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, resident of Near Hanuman Mandir, Bramhapuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4.

Balmukund Pandey, aged about 40 years, son Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, ?*^1»'

resident of Near Duttatraya Mandir, Bframhapuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 5.

Mahesh Pandey, aged about 35 years, son Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, resident ofShri Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6.

Pandit Santosh Pandey, aged about 32 years, son Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, resident of Shri Budheshwar Mahadeo Mandir, Raipur(Chhattisgarh) 7.

Smt. Premadevi Tiwari, aged about 47 years, daughter of Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, wife of Hamarayan Tiwari, resident of Mahamai Para, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 8.

Smt. Kaushilya Devi Pandey, aged about 38 years, daughter of Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, resident of Bramhpuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 9.

Smt. Annupurna Tripathi, aged about 32 years, daughter of Late Pandit Ram Nihor Pandey, wife of Shri Surendra Tripathi, resident of Gudhiyari Pahadi, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

--AppeIIants

Versus

1.

Shri Raipur Pustikar Samaj (Trust), Shri Budheshwar Mahadeo Mandir, Aminpara Ward, Bramhpuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ;

2.

Shri Vivek Amin, son of Hari Bhau, aged about 25 years, Sahayak Pujari, Shri Budheshwar Mahadeo Mandir, Bramhpuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3.

Ram Nihor Pandey (Died on 2.10.05) :'

Respondents Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate For appellants For Respondent No. 1

Hon'ble Shri Justice Saniav Aarawal Judament On Board 27/03/2017 Heard on admission.

1.

This is a miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 27(3) of;lhe Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951 by questioning the.order dated 21/03/2006 passed by 11th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Raipur. 2.

Undisputed facts of the case are that a proceeding was initiated by respondent No.

1 as per the provisions prescribed under Section 26(1) of the C.G. Public Trust Act, 1951. During the pendency of the said proceeding, an application was made by one Santosh for his impleadment in the said proceeding under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC. In the said proceeding, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC was also made by legal representatives of deceased non-applicant No. 2 namely Ram Nihor Pandey. Applicant/respondent No. 1 has also submitted an applicationfor withdrawal ofthe proceedings under Order 23 Rule 1 ofthe CPC. 3.

After considering all the aforesaid applications, the Court below has rejected the applications, which were filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 ofthe CPC and also an application, which wasfiledQrder22Ryle4 of the CPC on the ground that since an application for withdrawal of the said proceedings itselfwas made and, the applicanVrespondent No. 1 was permitted for withdrawal of the proceeding while exercising the powers under Order 23 Rule1 oftheCPC.

4.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, when the applicantShri Raipur Pustikar Samaj (Trust) has

/& ^ [^ ^ ^ !^s s w./ ,.?te€^"

withdrawn his entire proceedings therefore, nothing survived inthe proceedings itself. Consequently, the appeal as filed is not maintainable and also being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. / No order as to costs.

Sd/- ^-<§anjayAgrawaT) Judge Yogesh INIKNNBNI'