RAGHUNATH vs HANDA (Died Through Lrs)

Page 1 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)

CGHC010081092018 2026:CGHC:46273
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
Date:
2026.11.03
17:18:03
+0530
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 155 of 2018
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 29-1-2018 in Civil Appeal
No.2A/2017 of the District Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar}
1.
Raghunath, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Banga, Caste Madiya,
2. Thosle, aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Banga, Caste Madiya,
Both are R/o Bade Parida, Lohandiguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar
(C.G.)
(Defendants No.1 and 2)
... Appellants
versus
1. Handa (Died) Through Legal Representatives
(Plaintiff)
1(A) Balman, S/o Late Ganesh (Grandson of Handa), aged about 35
years, R/o Village Kotgarh, Tahsil Bhanpuri, District Bastar (C.G.)
1(B) Prem, S/o Late Ganesh (Grandson of Handa), aged about 32
years, R/o Village Kotgarh, Tahsil Bhanpuri, District Bastar (C.G.)
1(C) Ayatu, S/o Late Ganesh (Grandson of Handa), aged about 22
years, R/o Village Kotgarh, Tahsil Bhanpuri, District Bastar (C.G.)
1(D) Pawati, D/o Late Ganesh (Grand-daughter of Handa), W/o
Arjun, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Jaibel, Tahsil Karpawan,
District Bastar (C.G.)
1(E) Sushila, D/o Late Ganesh (Grand-daughter of Handa), aged
about 40 years, W/o Shri Suklal, R/o Village Badampara, Chitrakot,
Tahsil Londiguda, District Bastar (C.G.)
2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Collector, Jagdalpur,
District Bastar (C.G.)
... Respondents

Page 2 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)
For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1(A) to 1(E) : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Single Bench: -
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J.
Judgment On Board
02/11/2026
1. The appellants herein/defendants No.1 & 2 have preferred the
present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated
29-1-2018 passed by the learned First Appellate Court – District
Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur {Presiding Officer – Mr. Ram Kumar
Tiwari} in Civil Appeal No.2A/2017 (Raghunath and another v.
Handa and another), whereby affirming the judgment and decree
rd
dated 24-12-2016 passed by the learned Trial Court – 3 Civil
Judge Class-I, Bastar at Jagdalpur {Presiding Officer – Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Singh} in Civil Suit No.99A/2013 (Handa v.
Raghunath and two others), the first appeal preferred by the
appellants/defendants was dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of
admission . Perused the memorandum of appeal, the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, as well as
the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
-:Proceedings before the Trial Court:-
3. Respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff Handa instituted a Civil Suit
before the Trial Court seeking a declaration that the judgment and

Page 3 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)
decree dated 24-9-2000 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2000
(Raghunath and another v. Handa and another), through Lok Adalat,
Jagdalpur be declared void. The basis of the suit was that the
compromise allegedly filed before the Lok Adalat in his name and
bearing his purported signatures had never been entered into by him,
nor did the signatures appearing on the compromise belong to him.
In support of his case, respondent No.1/plaintiff Handa
examined a handwriting expert to establish that the signatures
appearing on the compromise were not of himself.
4. Upon conclusion of the trial and after considering the evidence
adduced by the parties, the Trial Court found the respondent/
plaintiff's case proved and decreed the suit, declaring the judgment
and decree passed through Lok Adalat in the aforesaid civil suit void
and further declaring that the same was not binding upon
respondent No.1/plaintiff.
- :Judgment and Finding of the First Appellate Court:-
5. The appellants herein/defendants No.1 and 2 preferred a first appeal
challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court. However, by the impugned judgment, the First Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal, observing that the case had earlier been
remanded once and the defendants were afforded two opportunities
to file their written statement and contest the proceedings. Despite
such opportunities, they failed to file their written statement and
remained ex parte. In these circumstances, the contention that they

Page 4 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)
were not afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case, was
found to be untenable. The First Appellate Court further observed
that the defendants' failure to file a written statement and their
continued silence, despite having sufficient opportunity, warranted
an adverse inference against them.
-:Argument of the Appellants/Defendants No.1 & 2 on
Admission :-
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 submits
that the First Appellate Court has erred in affirming the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court without properly appreciating
the facts and evidence available on record. It is further contended
that the suit has been decreed solely on the basis of the testimony of
the handwriting expert, without there being any other supporting
evidence, and that the appellants were not afforded an adequate
opportunity to file their written statement and defend the suit. On
the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel seeks admission of the appeal
on the proposed substantial questions of law formulated in the
memorandum of appeal.
-:Finding of this Court on Admission:-
7. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
8.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to cases
involving a substantial question of law. The existence of such a
question is a condition precedent for entertaining a second appeal.

Page 5 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)
In the matter of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
(deceased) By LRs , (2001) 3 SCC 179 , the Supreme Court has
held that the existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua
non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC.
9.
Further, in the matter of Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal ,
(2006) 5 SCC 545, the Supreme Court has explained the
distinction between a question of law and a substantial question of
law and held that a substantial question of law must be one which
materially affects the rights of the parties and is not merely a
question of fact or a settled proposition of law applied to the facts of
the case.
10. In the matter of Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and others ,
(2020) 19 SCC 57 , the Supreme Court has reiterated that the High
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC,
cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a first appellate Court or
interfere with concurrent findings of fact merely because another
view is possible.
11. Recently, in the matter of U. Sudheera and others v. C.
Yashoda and others , (2025) 4 SCC 215 , the Supreme Court has
reiterated that a second appeal is maintainable only when the Court
is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and, in
the absence of such a question, the appeal ought to be dismissed at
the admission stage itself.

Page 6 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)
12. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court has
examined the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the
proposed substantial questions of law in the context of the findings
recorded by both the Courts below. In the present case, the Trial
Court has afforded the appellants/defendants No.1 & 2 an
opportunity to contest the respondent/plaintiff’s claim by specifically
asserting that it was, in fact, plaintiff “Handa” who had entered into a
compromise before the Lok Adalat. However, despite having an
opportunity to put forward such a defence before the Trial Court, the
appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 have failed to do so and remained
silent.
13.Having failed to contest the claim at the appropriate stage, they
cannot now seek to challenge the compromise merely by raising such
a plea in appeal. Both the Courts below have considered the material
available on record and recorded well-reasoned findings. The
appellants have not been able to demonstrate that such findings
suffer from any perversity, misreading or non-consideration of
material evidence, or that the Courts below have applied any
incorrect legal principle warranting interference under Section 100 of
the CPC.
14.The findings are founded upon the evidence available on record and
do not disclose any error of law giving rise to a substantial question
of law. Accordingly, in view of the principles governing the
jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, as discussed herein-above,

Page 7 of 7
(SA No.155/2018)
this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of
law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, this
Court does not find any ground to admit the appeal.
15.Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage
itself. There shall be no order as to costs.
16.A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE
Soma