^" y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Civil Revision No.100of2008 AppSicant JjjdanientDebtor Non-AppIicant Decree-Holder Deveshwar Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Satyanarayan Singh, Occupation Advocate, R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja (C.G.) Pawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Bhola Prasad Agrawal, aged about 24 years, Occupatjon" Business, R/o Town Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Civil Revision under Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3rd of July, 2008) l-1eard on I.A.No.1,an application for condonation ofdelay in filing this civil revision. (2) Brief facts are that in Civil Suit No.75-A/1991 the llnd Civil Judge Ciass-11, Ambikapur passed a decree on 29-11-1995 for delivery of vacant possessionafter demotition of super-structure situated upon Khasra No.2827/3 area 0.04 acres situated in Ambikapur, Djstrict Surguja and also forpermanent injunction against the applicant/defendant. Being aggrieved, the applicanVdefendant preferred first appeal which was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No.lO-A/2002 vide 2-- judgment dated 02-12-2002. The applicant/defendant preferred Second Appeal in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. An amicable settlement was arrived at betft/een the parties. It was agreed that upon filing an application for demarcation of land, the executing Court shall get the land demarcated and deliver possession. Pursuant to this, an application for demarcation of land was filed before the executing Court. The executing Court got the demarcation done through Shri B.N.Sai, Assistant Land Record OfRcer (Nazul), Ambikapur. Shri B.N.Sai was also examined on oath by the executing Court. An objection was preferred by the applicant/defendant. The executing Court dismissed theobjection by a well reasoned and speaking order dated 29-11-2007. Revision was preferred on 17-04-2008 and is thus barred by limitation. (3) Considering the fact that the applicant/defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of thesuit, the sole ground of ignorance oftheperiod of limitation for the delay in filing revision is not sufficient to condone the delay. (4) No ground for condoning the delay in prefemng the civil revision is thus seen. The application I.A.No.1 for condlonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the civil revision also stands dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopai