HIGH COU'RT OF CBHATriSGAHH:. BILASPUll Civil Revisioia Mo. 7 of 2009 PBTXTI02 R Benimadhav Keshai-vaiii, Versus RESP02TOENT Sidai" Siiigh ^-'- ORDBR ii.;-^ Post for $'-5-2009 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge tllll < !:L m HIOH COU'RT OF CHHA1TISGAHH,,B3;LASFUH Civa! Revisioa No. 7 of 2009 PBTITIOHBH ©EFENDANT?I©.T Jiid^aaeat debtor RESPOmSENTS Beuima.dhav Kesharvaiii, S/o Late MaldiaBlal Keshanvani, aged 40 yeai's, Occupation Cultivation, R/o Ward No. 6, Bania Para Sarangarh, Talisil Sarangai'h, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Versus Sidar Singli, S/o Late Aiiant Ram Sao, aged 65 years, OccupaUon Cultivation, R/o Nagar Palika Chouk, Sarangarh, Talisil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh Shri S. N. Nande, Advocate, for theappMcant. SBs_ _JUSTICB H.K. AOARWAL O H D B R (S -5-20091 Heard Stoi Nande, leamed comisel for fhe applicaiit on tiie questlon of maiatainability. Sliri Naiide submits that the decree passed in the aforesaid suit is nullity. He fui'fher subniits that fl:ie suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and, therefore, executmg Court cazinot proceed witli tiie executiou proceediags. A bare perusal of ttie appllcation llled by fhe appMcant under Section 47 of C.P.C. would show that the objection raised by the applicaiit was that the appjicant is not iu possession of tbe suit property aiid other defeudaats ai'e iu possession of the same and, therefore, tiie executiou proceedmgs niay be rejected against tiie applicaiit only aiid decree may De executed against other judgment debtors. Even if the relief claimed in the application could have been granted by learned trial Court, it would not have dlsposed of the execution proceedmgs and, therefore, this revision is clearly barred under tlie proviso toSection 115(1) ofthe C.P.C, aud, fherefore, the instmit revision beiiig barred under the saicl proviso, is not maintainable. The revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge !!;~_L: ^