-^^^Y,^'^-^-^-1--^-''^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.1^?»|?toBench CIVIL REVISION N0. l^.^ /2011 APPLICANT DEFENDANTno.l Smt. Janki Devi Aged-about 62 years W/o Shri Rainnath Parashar R/o Main Road, Korba, Tahsil 85 Distt.- Korba [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ flc^nU^- ^ <S^SS!^-y" ^(e^l..--"^';T^l ^^do»B('9tt" o^'"^\ ^v' ^ &&.(:eWflun't4 c l.Firu Ram Aged-about 50 years, S/o Inchharam, Caste- Ganda, R/o village- Tarada, Tahsil- Kartala, Distt.- Korba [C.G.] 2. Ram Kumar Kaushik Aged-about 35 years, S/o late Dau Ram, Caste- Kalaar, 3. Smt. Brindamati Wd/o Puriram, caste- Ganda, 4. Halka Patwari 1, head office Tarda From 2 to 4 are R/o village- Tarada, Tahsil- Kartala, Distt.- Korba [C.G.] 5. Revenue Inspector, Ra.ni.ma. Barpali, Tahsil-Kartala, Distt.- Korba [C.G.] 6. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector, Korba [C.G.] CWIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CFVIL PROCEDURE r _~T' <<s © HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CjyiLReyision No. 124 of 2011 APPLICANT (DefendantNo.1) RESPONDENTS Smt. Janki Devi Versus Firtu Ram and others Plaintiffs CIVIL REVISON UNDER SECTION 115 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State/respondent No.6. ORAL ORDER (04.11.2011) Heard on admission. 1. Instant civil revision assails the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.8.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Korba in Civil Suit No.62-A/2009 whereby and whereunder the applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming relief of declaration and injunction. Present applicant sought rejection of plaint by filing application under Order 7 Rute 11 of the CPC interalia on the ground that the suit being for correction of field map is barred under Section 257 ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code. 3. The trial Court, after perusing the plaint, dismissed the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe CPC holding suit has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming relief of declaration and injunction and the suit is maintainable. 4. I have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record including order impugned. 5. A bare perusal of plaint averment would reveal: the suit has not been preferred claiming relief of correction offield map and, therefore, on the face is not barred under Section 257 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. 7. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting applicant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC warranting interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 8. The civil revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^