•^ L».„ ..........<?SS^(^A^/ . ^ ij^- ^ R^- V9-':'^""^^-{<:mw"'' C- ^ '' ptaKnle* M a"'^^^.\,^.. .."• IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G..), o CIVIL REVISION N0. l^ OF 2008 fS.B.) ®^ i5S'^: PETmONERS : JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1. Moolchand Pansari, aged about 64 years Son of Late Shri Seva Ram Pansari; Raju @ Raj Pansart, aged about 50 years Son of Late Shri Seva Ram PaRsgri; Smt. Uma Devi, aged about 50 years, Widow of Late Shri Mohan Lal Pansari; ;<a» ' All residents of Old Main Hospital Road, Diwan Para, Ward No.22, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS DECREEHOLDERS labout 50 Shri l^tkhan \'\ fc aged about 24 years; D/o Labe^( Mgkhan Lal; VW^ai, ag^l about ^ years; Qfo Late S^ri M&khan L^ 4. Gajendra,!'.gge(l about 21 years; ?:1^"? ^ ~ ~^~' -T? '•' °f Sonof Lafe<rshri Makhan Lal; 5. Heeremani Son • of Lgte Shrt Makftan Lat; At present gg residents of Naggr, Sarona, Raipur (C.G.).| 1 6 ll-t 1>0 @ im rriv ID 1 1-1 Iffl 1 Im 10 10B Itn im |U1 l^ N 1 10 u 1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Bench : Hon'bieShnDHip^osihebDeshmukh.J. Civil Reyjsjon NO.ISBSOOS Petitloners 1. Moolchand Pansari, aged about 64 JudgmentDebtors years, Son of Late Shri Seva Ram Pansari; 2. Raju @ Raj Pansari, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Shri Seva Ram Pansari; 3. Smt. Uma Devi, aged about 50 years, Widow of Late Shri Mohan Lal Pansari; All residents of Old Main Hospital Road, Diwan Para, Ward No.22, Rajnandgaon Versus Respondants 1. Smt. Nirmala Bai, aged about 50 years, Decree holders WidowofLate ShriMakhan^Lal; 2, Seema Bai, aged about 24years,D/o Late Shri Makhan Lal;, 3. Sena Bai, aged about 22 years, D/o Lafe Shri Makhan L.al; 4. Gajeodra, aged about 21 years,S/o Late ShnMakhan Lai, 5. Heeramani, S/o LateShri Makhan Lal; At present all residents of Kabir Nagar, Sarona, Raipur(C.G.) Civil Revision under Section 115 ofthe Gods of Civil Procedure, 19<%. Present: -Shri P. K. G. Tiwari, Senior Advooate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, counsel for the applicants. •1 : " • : Shri Anoop Majumdar, counsei for respondents No,1 to 5. ORALORDER (Passed on this 10th dayof February, a)09) Leamed Senlor Advocate for the applicants soug.ht permission to withdraw this ch/il revision with liberty to raise an objection before the executing Court as to maintainabjlity of the exeoution proGeedings on the ground that the cjecree hoider having aiready been put in possession of the suit property^ pureuant io a compromise decree passed bythe Court could not exeoute the aforesaid decree agajn. (2) Accordingly, this civil revision is disrpissed as withdrawn. Ttie applicants are at libertytotake steps available under law. Gertifiedoopytoday. -j Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh ) Judge -K» Tumsne