B1^"*'""!*1!)" S^si^ •^^:"'|. Sil lill Vf^ \ c< IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. JZo^- of 2004 ApDlicant /' Non-Applicants f .^/ y ^ <^4/ 'sy : ( Omprakash Goenka, aged about 53 years, Son of Shri Laxminarayan GoenKa Resident of House No. Gudiyari, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Original Defendant No. 5) Versus 1. Nemichand Bhansali, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Shri Amolak Chand Bhansali, Money Lender, R/o Edward Road, Raipur Tahsil & District Raipiir (Original plaintiff) 2^ Anand Re-Rolling Mill, Ring Road No. 2, Son Dongri Uria, Raipur (C.G.) (Original defendant No. 1) 3.. > 5. M/s Vikas Foundry Ring Road No.2, Son Dbngri Urla, Raipur (C.G.) (Original defendant No. 2) M/s R. G. Flour Mill G. E. Rbad, Durg (C.G.) (Origmal defendant No. 3) Santosh Rungta, S/o Ghanshyamdas G.E. Road, Durg (C.G^ (Original defBndant Nd. ^} M 9. ^ Smt. Vijaya Devi Goenka W/o Shri Omprakash Goenka R/o Gudiyari, Raipur (C.G.) (Origmal defendant No. 6) Vikash Goenka, S/o Shri Omprakash Goenka R/o Gudiyari, Raipur (t.G.) (Original defendant No. 7) Smt. Puja Goenka, W/o Pawan Bhoot S/o Suresh Proprietor of M/s Narendra Lavex, Industrial Area, Amravati R/o Tutenagar, Amravati, M.S (Original defendant No. 8) Smt. Tripti Rungta, W/o Sourabh Rungta, G.E. Road, Durg (C.G.) (Original defendant No. 9) 10. Sourabh Rungta, ^ S/o Shri Bajranglal Rungta R/o G.E. Road, Durg (C.G.) (Origmal defendant No. 10) t' CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION S1t5 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE lfer.tiil(^''(!t.V.lllBB';''wfc'l*wnm" g(3»'i'i)»»« awwa^^s' i r: Bl -I! !.: 1 lfl! II;:) XI-H6—78 sn^r'w f<!-)i«* '^n sn^T %"qN? J^ ^qraiffPT, »fll'M'16,f^iRTy _._ ^_- R.;^)0. 2J"''^-)^°c'Lt sv^f •tra?7 (ijc|[^«i^) ¥8HWW^-3 Sff^I 17-01^006. Dr. Shailesh Ahuja and Sn^. Anju Ahuja, counsel for the applicant. Heartl This revision petition has 2004 and ^6-08-2004 passed by[ CivilSUJtNQ^O-BQ004. Nore-applicant No.1 hereiit tiereirt and non-applicanis No.2 No.Sinttie^ldsuit ^Nwfrr •wrcff-nf fs<A •?tegre ^affiprsn^r Ueen Perusal af the order dated an applicatfon Under Section 1^ defendant^ NO.S&pplicant. In W, different. Deferidant Nos. 6 and |een filed against the ordere dated 11-08- iXIVth Additional District Judge, Raipur in filed a Civil Suit against the applicant to 10. The applicant herein is d^endant 11-08-2004 shcws that in the CivilSuit 1 of C.P.C. has been fited on behaffof e said application it was stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are difffcrent industries and Uie ownera are also 7 are the wifeand son, respectively, of defendant No.S/applicant. As def^ndant No.8 was out of Raipur, therefore, on his behatf valalatnama has application that time may be gr^nted to fite vakalatnama and address^. Perusal of the order dated 1 1 Q but they have not responded ^ has recorded the statement aii hot been filed. It was stated In the said B-08-2004 shows that counsel for the defendants states that he has ^ritten lettere to defendante No.3,4,8 and nd he has not received any in^trucUons. On Uiis statsment made ()y counsel for the defendants, the Court d thereafter names of the parties were ,1,1: ,1.;.,1.1,- \{ '•'\ XI-HG—7Si an^i w ©;fw •wiT^siriRigCTisB' -3:s?'airaRTO, dTt1'y<i(S,'{««ii^t>i< (^, j^., MO ,'2-0-^ •^e01^ WWiTSKW^i Sn^?T tT5Ri' ('^li^«<<i^) ^inT'gre'? 3D^i - 2- called. As none appeared on befiaff of defendants No.3,4,8 and 10, the Court proceededex parte against^hem. So fer as defendant No.S^j 11-08-200^ and 16-08-2004 ar^ beenpasSedtolacilitatethe paijty given to the;defiendante. There is| w^rrantingjntertBrenw. Accordtngly, the revision p^tiQnj&dismjssed. ^nfepfFi WRif <f fe^t ^PE5K ^•siRmsn^r pplicant is concerned, the orders dated not prejudicial but these orders have and the counsel and time has been no iltegality nor any error of jurisdicUon Sd/- Ag.ChiefJustice ; \ i 'uf'.!t io:l y.w