'r \ i/ _. /'u BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGiH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH C.R. No. Of2005. APPLICANTS <PLAINTIFFS NON-APPLICANTS ,DEFENDENT /\Y •* l< ^•fc ^y /'y *•* -'>^\ >* ;<•"v \.** ^y ^y ^s> :- Inderchand Patni, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Gulabchand Patni, resident of Sadar Bazar, Durg (Chhattisgarh), VER S U S :- 1. Municipal Corporation, Durg, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), ^ 2. Shri Dilip Vasnikar, Commissioner, ^' Municipal Corporation, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh), 3, Shri Sanjay Somawar Saheb, Tahsildar, Durg (Chhattisgarh), ^ 4 Tahsildar, Durg, Tahsil and Disti-ict Durg ,/ (Chhattisgarh), 'tes'*''" CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OJF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3~5Er "4iqiM<<, y'rtl'y'KB, 'fa<'iwli,< . C-.^, No. ^^ piJW--"""--"""" sii^r^w (<i*itfl<*') 3ti^iw1?!w* Wl S^t *fi<i TOIIW ^lfet 311^1 ofti^i?I^l4 £ff*R^^ 1^^ <^^!< ^rafefan^r S.B. Hon'bte Shri Justice N.K. Aaa 30.10.2009 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Ad| counsel forthe applicant. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel Heard on M.(C).P. No.1139/2ptt5, appdcation for condonation of delay in filing the revision. On due consideration, f am| wal /ocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, for respondent No.1. satisfied that the applicant has succeeded in explaining the caus^ of delay in filing the revision. Therefore, the M.(C).P. is altowed ^nd the delay caused in filir^i the revision is hereby condoned. Also heard on admfssion. The instant revision is direct^d against the order dated 13-08- 2004 passed by Firet Civif Judge,|Class-l, Durg in Civil Suit No.7- A/2002 whereby and whereunder an application under Order 12 Rute 6 of C.P.C. fiied by the applicantfplaintiff has been dismissed by the trial Court. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Sjenior Advocate would submft that the non-applicant No.l/Corporaton hlas admitted in its wrttten statement that the suit land belongs to the S^ate and, therefore, in view of ttie admission of non-applicant No.1 in ought to have been passed in its written statement, the decree favour of the applicanffplaintiff. Therefore, the order fmpugned pas^ed by the trial Court is illegal and without jurisdicfen and deserves to b]e set aside. ^ ''<! C—7S 3^1 W K-Vti WT 3]I^I WKi* Kw <IT*<CTI (n«ii°r> 'yss •^W\v\-i\, (Siflly'KD, fsKni+iy CTtec-.A-"-'--li/-^200^ 311^1 •q^W (iy[^«<<^I) VR >flKdi 'if fe%t <r<n((ii After hearing learned couns^l opinion ofthis Court, this revision is| has not even filed copy of p!air|t Moreover, the revision is pending s| be at the verge of disposal; no pr^j applicant since the suit, after parties, would be decided bythe tri^l In the result, the revision However, since the suit is pending Court shall decide the suit as ea< period of six months from the date o( for ffiie applicant, in the considered devoid of substance. The appltcant showing the nafaire of the suit. |nce 2005, and by now, the suit may judice is going to be caused to the recjording the evidences of both the court-on its own merits. |is dismissed at admission stage. ince 2002, it is directed ttiat the trial |ly as possibl'e preferably within a receipt of copy of this order, - - --——-ti_^_. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge