HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT/ DEFENDANT No. 1 Civll Revislon No. 100/2010 Vijay Pandey, S/o Shri Sadanand Paiidey, aged about 50 years, R/o Manohar Talkies compound Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS NON-APPLICANT/ 1. PLAINTIFF NON-APPUCANT/ 2. 3. 4. Chhotu Lal Kashayap S/o Late Babu Lal Kashayap, aged about 59 years, R/o Sirgitti Bilaspur, T'ahsil & District Biaspur(C.G.j. Dhani Ram S/o Late Babulal Kashyap Aged about 61 years, R/o VUlage Lokhandi Tahsil and District Bilaspiir (C.G.). Munlcipal Corporation, BUaspur Through Coininissioner Mumcipal Corporation Bilaspur (C.G.). State of Chhatdsgarh througli Collector BUaspm' (C.G.). CIVIL RBVISIQN UNDER SECTION 115 OF CQDB OF CFVIL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ratnesb Kuiaar Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/aon-applicaut No. 4. Respondents/ Non-applicaats No. 1 to 3 not noticed. ORAL^RD^^ (Passedon 29/09/3010) 1. By this civU revision iinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (in short the Code'j petitioner has challenged the oi-der dated 14/7/2010 passed by learned 5th Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur in civil suit No. 131-A/2009 whereby leamed 5tl1 Civil Judge Class-II, BU&spur has dismissed the application under --•-—~Z3i 'islis, S! ,? ,?.6gia; i il l%!eff9K^., B t.? ''st@?-Sii:;'>' '•:!; ^ Order 7 Rule 11 of fhe Code filed on behalf of fhe present petitioner for dismissal of suit filed by non-applicant No. 1 on fhe ;round fhat plamtiff is not in possession and without the claim of relief of possession fhe suit for declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable. 2. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner and Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/non-applicant No. 4 are heard. 3. Revision memo and ofher documents perused. 4. As per plaint allegation property tn dispute is owned and possessed by platntifE'/non-applicant No. 1. Present petitionerhas started illegal construction over fhe property fherefore he has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on fhe basis of pleading of the defendant, petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed application nnder Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, Court is required to consider fhe matntainabilitv of fhe suit tn terms of under Order 7 Rtde 11 of tfae Code, m fhe Ught of allegation made m plaint and riot m fhe right of defence of the defendant unless same is admitted by the plaintiff. In tfae present case after considering the allegation made in the plaint Court below has dismissed ftie application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Learned Court below has not committed any illegality. Court below neither exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it nor failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it, I do not find any substance m the civil i, y & . &s S S KIi S '.: ^^''^^st^^^^^^^^%ll%IIj^®il^%j^^S^^^^S^U^S@J^^^^tS^^I^IIISI@!^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^II ,^^ "^.,,. t '<%s2ti""~*f-;6 .<<*' vllsts<ssy 5. revision. Consequentiy, ctvU revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. AU interim applications are also dismlssed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma ie