Chhattisgarh High Court
MCC/596/2022 of SMT. SUNITA KUMARI Vs VASUDEV PRAJAPATI on 2 August 2026
2026:CGHC:33578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 596 of 2022 Smt. Sunita Kumari W/o Vasudev Aged About 33 Years, R/o Durga Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Civil And Revenue District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vasudev Prajapati S/o Rajaram Prajapati,
CGHC010350892022
2026:CGHC:33578
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 596 of 2022
Smt. Sunita Kumari W/o Vasudev Aged About 33 Years, R/o Durga Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Civil And Revenue District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
Vasudev Prajapati S/o Rajaram Prajapati, Aged About 34 Years, R/o BTI
Road, Baroda Chowk, Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Non-Applicant
_____________________________________________________________
For Applicant
:Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior
Counsel appears along with Ms. A.
Sandhya Rao, Advocate
For Non-Applicant
:Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 03.08.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that after making observation at para 24 of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 passed in First Appeal (M) No.09/2015, the Court has become functus officio and, therefore, no observation as such could be made thereafter at para 25 and prays for modification of the impugned judgment and decree to the said extent.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Non-Applicant has supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by this Court and submits further that the petition as framed instead of questioning the same before the Supreme Court is rather misconceived in nature and, deserves to be dismissed.
3. Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties, considering further the reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 passed by this Court in First Appeal (M) No.09/2015, I do not find any substance in this petition, so as to call for any modification, as claimed by the Applicant.
4. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE sunita