t ^ c^'^,/, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. ^ OF 2009 APPLICANT ^CEFENDANT ^^•^ •>:!'.^" ^^T'....- ^^•" ,, Laxman, S/0 Bansuram, Ram, aged about 49 years, By Caste- Panika, R/0 Village- Khadganwan, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT /^PLAJNTIFF ^SukhmatiBai W/0 Charku about 65 years, By Caste- Panika, R/0 Viilage- Khadganwan, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECT10N 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^ *(14M(%%?^R" -^^ ^ww^ ^\wi^, %^wy C. ^ , 1^0. {oo^ •-^200^ ^ ^ S^t XR^(^iyi<s^) ^^rw^w ^iT^y^r Si»*il°P ¥^TOT'^7T^Ti^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justsce N.K. Aaarwal 20-11-2009 Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel f4 Ghi^id4i'< HiH<A "^ f^^ <r^^^< '^'3?i^w3^w 'the appJIcant. Heard on admission. Feeiing aggrieved by the CiviJ Appea! No.12-A/2009 by| Manendragarh, District Korea ari^ passed in Civil Sult No.33-A/200I DIstrict Korea. Facts briefly stated are as in a suit fiied by the non| objection regardlng jimitation by Rule 11 ,of the C.P.C. before th^ aiEowed by the'triai Court holdjngj the appeal preferred by the non-^ppEicant the questlon whether or not sult isltime barred is to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidenbe therefor and at this stage, this cannot be decided on an appiica^Ion flEed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. I Learned counsel appearing for the applicant wouJd submit that She learned appeilate Court has|erred In aJiowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the triai Court. He would further that a bare perusa! of the[plaJnt would that the syit is tirne barred. |order dated 27-10-2009 passed In the Adciitlona! Sessions Judge, ^jng out of order dated 30-09-2 by CSviJ Judge, CJass-li, Chirmiri, s^nder: tappijcant, the appiicant raised an pling an appijcation under Order 7 Triai Court. The applteatjon was jthe suit as tjme barred. However, •^ppEicant was aflowed hoiding that ^iw^^.s^-W-' -•&;.;?'-•%••-: •^-~^.<'. ^^t^^^ iT^TF^T^[^^T^y^—FS/95—~11 /2008—},00,009. -^ 1 ^TI^TWf^W TOT 3?TOF sai*n<t» •J Kvr 'WRW^^I^' •^^v^f^^^ ^w^, r^^wy C. ^< ^0- fcH) ^^0^^ ^?r'q!^^(^vl<r^) TCTW^?r3^T —-»-- Havjng heard learned perused the order Impugned, The question of question of !j'mit4 of !aw and facts v/hich has to the case upon the issue framed iH Since the iearned Courl j'urisdictlonal iElegaIity in passing and is hereby dismissed. No However, It is djrected Issue of limitation in accordance coljnse! !db ijmit^ti'on be jdeci'ded the ord^r thN <ibl4i^4l^ *<»*<<???^ff^^t '^NR^P '^'37^ ^l^l for the applicant and having not find any merit jn the revjsion. t^tion Is essentjafiy a mjxed question after reoordlng evidence In thts regard. beiow has not committed any order, the revision is iiabSe to be as to coste. the tria! Court shall dscjde the v^lth law on jts own merits. Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge