BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR t^" C.R. N0. OF 2010 ^'" •>,».•'" APPLICANTS \^ .y& ;"?-:s^ l)/ Smt. Rarhin Bai, widow of Shiv Singh alias Ghunha Verma, 90 years: ws^ aged about Occupation Agriculturist, resident of • Kanteli,Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), ;2)^/Devendra Singh, sonf of Bhukhan Singh Verma, aged about 42 years, Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Kanteli, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 NON-APPLICANTS :1) VERSUS Toman Singh son of Daruvan Singh Verma, aged about 54 years, Occupation Cultivation, R/o. Kanteli, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Applicant 2;} Motilal son of Hiralal Gilra, aged about 44 years, Occupation Grocer, R/o. Ganjpara, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Non-applicant No.3 ) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Non-applicant No.4 •^ul^Li-£f-T*l^""i£3K«waa!^fv. fc ^-^ess£SE^£i;?^^.jT;- CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^**6*^' 'S^ -^WW^, W-SwKo, [^WV^ CL. R.. ^o. SS-J/0 3[1^?T •q'Ri' (ipf^SI^T) sn^rw R-fi<* 'cT^ sn^T ^*i!* ^iTwafta sii^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaanlval 19^3-2010 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Adv<^ate witti Ms. Pragya Singh, counsel for the applicants. Shri Sameer Betiar, Panel Law^er for the State. Heard on admission. The instant revision is directed 02-2010 passed by 1st Ch/il Judge, ^!<lf<;1<fll *{fH<?Ti "^ f^St <i«f<^l< ^i'sffiiiisn^r against the order dated 05- Class-1, Bemetara, District Durg in Misc. Unregistered case/200^ vrfiereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the plejintiffe/non-applicants under Order 9 Rule 9 ofthe C.P.C. and un<Nr Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act has been allowed and thesuit has number. Learned counsel for the appel reason assigned by the plaintiffs/non-^pplicants for their absence on the date of hearing and explanati^n given for condonation of deiay is not satisfactory, and, therefo has erred in restoring the suit. I have heard learned counsN for the applicants and perused the order impugned. The tearned Court below after tjaking into consideration the reason assigned by the piaintifls/non reasoned and detaited order and allovifed the application restoring the suit. After going through the order ijnpugned, 1 do not find any ftr_nftrv^rsih/in fhfi rtrrfer nfl<%<sbri hvti^o f^iijrt'helrtu/ been restored to its originat lante would submit that the e. the learned Court betow applicants has passed the 14 ^~=T •<I]<IK'I<I, axil'y'i®,f°«niyy —....(^;...S..:.....(VJ..i>.;....S>..^ *11*1<11 (KNraa I an^i '^3K ('^(3^?) /" 311^1W I<-t wn sii^i ibii* Kw TOiiw^iffean^i Sl It is trite law that uniess the findings are perverse, the orders are revisional Jurisdiction ofthis Court. In view of above, the revision liabie to be and is hereby dismissed (^rder is patently illegal or the inot open for challenge under being devoid of substance is motion staae- - *t +i<iid4'< wi?ff^ S ^h^i ^affimsfi^ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge IIKI'flfl <N1^ >il;"lld'i, .rRT-Tink —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000.