^a,.»,U.IS.lW3.»«.W^&«S*.*^AA«U^At"lt.U.,)y*^ -^^" -iL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. CIVIL REVISION N0. 1'7>'2--OF 's SFENEENT ^ Smt. Ardma Wd/o Masoj Jsas, s^dabout ^ . 33 years., R/o vmage S^aihoU, Tah. Tilda, Etett ^y/ Rapur(CG.) ^ VERSUS ^•y ^y^f' ^y' uo< n<^c ^^ < ;^ (^ p&AiNnFp ^yl') SmtShantiba diedflu-ou^iL-R Kwcsr, aged about 25 yaara, S/o Ctenya KunffiT Jain, R/o Newra, Tsih. Tilda, Distt. Rnpur .(C.G.) ^) SteteofOihattisgaA^^^ •M^>«>"»1i Cjsll<?U-e^ J/odipe^. CIVIL REVISION UNDERSECTION 115 OFTHE C.P.C. 73f «Lll'4lc'W, fffll'M'i'?, fsi<"ti^y.< C-. ^. N0. f^:2--.! 31!^?I'^^ ( yl3'"i^) sf^vvf K-n* 'tTqT -STi^T 5t**ll<t) TOnwHteTsn^T •tiiild'fl-i w^i 4 fsl<3 '.h«;i( ^aifwcian^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. ^laarwal 11-03-2010 Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel foi| Shri L.C. Das, counset for n| the applicants. sn-appltoant No. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. ^dvocate fa- non-^ipficant No.2/State. Heard finally. Feeling aggrieved by the passed by Seventh Civit Judge, €\ order dated 06-01-2003 tass-11, Raipur in Civil Suit No.49-A/2002 whereby and wltereunder an apFrfieatien preferred under Order 22 Rule q of the C.P.C. for setting aside the abetment and for substitution of name of appticant in place of deceased plaintiff S(nt. Shanti Bai has been allowed, the instant revision has b^en preferred. Leamed counsel for the apt>licarts woutd submtt that as per defendant's case, deceas^d plaintiff Smt. Shanti Bai was havlng no right of title ov^r the suit preperty and, therefore, ,any will if executed by hjer in favour of appliGant is of no eonsequence. Therefore, Court betow allowing the non-^llcant's application Is without jurisdiction and deserves tc| Per contra, learned couns^l for non-applicant No.1 would submit that leamed Court the applieation nfthe nnn-applimnll the ordw passed by the be set aside. oelow has rightly allowKl and rightlyallowed-ttm-te- W^fft <lsn<l ^"IW', WWi'W —FS/147—2/2010 —1,00,000. :.Q l»l"!«')E'.l -s-ss ^i^id^, ^T<!yji'«,'f^iray . . C-,^_^.:J.^.^. 311^1 qil ft-fi* ii«nsn^ignN; gn^naq? (•rt'^') ^TOiT^tetsn^ in ptaee of deceas^d plaintiff Smt. Slianti Bai. He would further contend that defendant to challenge the genu right of the person who has been of the will and, therefore, no juriscjictional illegality has been committed by the Court below. Having heard leamed coutisel for the parties and having perused the order Imfw jurisdictional ill^ality in the order pjassed hy the Gourt betow. It Is trite law that while jurisdiction, this Court cannot r&(appreciate the evidence unless it is shown that the order 1 <tiiif<'i4;t WRff ^ifs^ <Fn«;i< ^ajfwTSlR^t is always ©penfor the neness of the wiN or the iubstitirted on the stren^h ned, 1 do not find any ^xercising the revfeional perverse or is based on noevidenc^. In view of the above, since patently illegal, finding is point out anysuch illegality or perv^rsfty in the findingarriv®l at, by the Court below, in the c^nsidered opinion of this Court, the revision being devoid of|merits is liabte to be and |is hereby dismissed. No order asto icosts. the applicants could net Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge