h/ ^ IN THE HIGJH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No.1L- / 2006 \'' y" ^' Revisionist ^ v . Shiekh Shakur Mohammad S/o Jaan Mohanimad Age 48 Years R/o Opposite Agrawalle s Sweet Shop, C)l|^^ Chudi Line, Distt Raipur. \ VERSUS Non- ^l. Shreelalchand Jain, Age 54 Yrs., Applicant ^: Shree Prakashchand Jain, Age 51 Yrs. ^ Shree Subhashchand Jain, Age 48, Shree Satish Kumar Jain, Age 45 All S/o Late Kalyanmal Jain And R/o Chudi Line, Sadar Bazaar Ward, Distt Raipur Seeking Revision of Order Dated 18/04/06 ofl Add, CJ Class-Ito the Court ofCJ Class-I RAipur, In CS J^/05. \^-^"" REVISION U/s 115 OF CPC, 1908. Factual M.atrix XI-HC-22 3:^;:ZTPTT?ra', ^Tn<Mll<o, [^<rtl^y 311^1 M5|C|» ^ ^ ITPTFTTSRW^? ^' *'y"\?Fia 200 C? f^s ^n^T^RT RpTW^TT^T Sb*4lch ^T^cT Sb*4lch H 3TI^T^<TRK^f5cf 02.08.2006 Shri Raja Sharma, cou^isel for the appUcaat. Meard 011 admission. This revision is dir< 18.4.2006, passed m Civil ?cted agamst the order dated {5uit No. IO-A/2005 by Uie Fu-st Additional Judge to tlie Coi^rt of Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur, whereby, an appUcation filed Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been d Leained cozuisel for applicaiit had talcen 2 groi^nds. His fu'st ground was tliiat suice the suit was for de^laration siinplicitor, it was not mamtaiiiable aiid second tl^at the siibject matter of the suit has not been properiy value' be done, the siiit woulcl be l the concenied court. I have gone tlirough been jEUed as Annexure D- 1. the trial court. So far as thd concenied, a perusal of the owners of the disputed laiic| by piittuig a valuation of| <=bi^I<n^1Ti <4 i^cnT^ te^ ^^K ^^rf^T3TT^T by the defendaat under Order 7, ismissed. tlie applicaiit submits that the i and if a proper valuation would 'aiTed by pecuniaiy jiirisdiction of ipie copy of the plaiat, which has t would show fliat the suit is not A perusal of the plaiii|t filed for declaration sim.pUcit{3r,but, is for a ^ - reUef of permaiient iajunction anjd in. tiiis view of the matter; the first ground taken by tlie d^jhfendaat was rightly dismissed by second ground aboiit valiiation is limpugned order aiid plaiat would show that for tlie declai'ato3|y reUef^ that the plaiiitiffs are the they have valued the said claim Rs.400/- and for the relief of ^.^ r ^r) XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f^TW3TT^T ShHlcb^cT ^JWit^ 3^ '^I^IC-I'M, 8>Tn<'1'|(o, fc|dl'y^< ^TMS|C»» ^TWWgWT^f"""""""^^4 ^[ 200j^ Rl^ w^T?^rT^K^f?cr _ j^ perm.aiient uijunction, tliey h|j iii sum of Rs.400/- aiid a tot^l put and a requisite fees on il^e the plaiiit. After gomg through th|: order, aiid consideiing the r{ this Court, tlie valuation se[ coiTect aad the trial couil ha^ There is no Ulegality ui the The petition filed undejr aiid is dism.issed at tlie motio) ortler chi^?<n4iTi ^i^€<iT^:fel^'<Rl^l< ^^f^T^-n^r |ave separately valued tlieu' claim |d valuation of Rs.800/- has been |e said amount has bee affixed on LJS conteiits of Uie plauit aiid the ^lief(s) clamied, ui the opuiion of l|t forfh by flie plahitiffs is quite rightly rejected tliis ground also. passed by ftie trial Court. Section 115 of the C.P.C. fails |i stage itself, Sd/- 1 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (Lfl^^Rg<))