•<- ^-.\. v^ --^.v- -. --'t---^ \.. -L.^^-^ t ^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF (C.G.) AT BILASPUR (C.G.) avilRevisionNo.^/2004; s"<flleBe"ch ^ @^<^L-^^^ Petitioner/Plaintiff:- Ganesh Shan^ar S/o Gariba ram Deewan Age about 46 years, R/o Village- Khundnee Tahsil- Guroor, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Respondents/Defendants:- 1,. A^J^ ...^ 2./ ^y^ >y^' 3. 4. /" 5, 7r VERSUS Garibaram S/o Late Jailal Deewan, age about 80 years, Sajjan Lal Deewan S/o Garibaram, age about 52 years, Jeevan lal deewan S/o Garibaram, age about 42 years, Deveshchand deewan S/o Garibaram, age about 40 years, Muktiram S/o Dashrooram, age about 41 years, All resident of - Village - KhundneeTah. Guroor, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Purnima bai W/o Shri Banshil lal, R/o Shri Ram nagar Kanker, Tah. & Distt. Durg(C.G-) State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Durg (C.G.) w^ Civil Revision under Sec. 115 of Civil Procedure Code Against. w- ^•' (a) Orderdt. 23/03/2004 (b) In case No. Civil Appeal No. 13/2003,, (c) Passed by Shri P. N. Tanbhurkar, A. D. J. Balod Being aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner/plaintiff respect- begs to prefer this revision on the following facts and grounds 'amongest other grounds:- 1^ Facts of the Case 1. That, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil appeal bearing no. 13/2003 on 28/04/2003 with application for condonation of delay under sec. 5 of limi- tation act against all respondents/defendants.The Learned A. D. J. passed the impunged order dated 13/01/2003, that appeal has been filed after limitation therefore application under section 5 of limitation act be quashed. That viAorder dt. 23/03/2004 is Annexure - A/1 , which is challenged heare. cont. XI-HC-22 -3TI^T^T f^ri^3T1^T ^WF^cT ^ r><^ 4 3^ "ill<ll<t^, t?T{i^<l<o, i^ldiy^< ^....e.-.^-.%Jojo<st&' iTTOFrrawtw'' •>7-r<••'l-rm•••••v-~;^- boli ^ f^re^' 3TI^T ^TTW^Trf^cT thfe None for the applicant. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, P.L for th^ Heard. On the eariier dates i.e. o< appeared for the appticant. The instant reyision petition dated 23/03/2004 and by which the] by the first Appellate Court as prescribed uncter the law and the ap^ for condonation of delay in filing th^ the appeal was also rejeeted. Learned counsel for the passed in A.U Js^swal and Ottiws wherein ther| limitation which is an order under| Second Af^eal lies and the rwision In view of the judgment c| dismissedas not maintainable. .R200SSuoreme Coifcrt22C cbN^41^^l^<rtT^tel^<Rt^l< ^3rf^T3TT^T State i 01/10/2004 and 04/11/2004 atso, none ias been fited against the impugned order appeal of the applicant has been clismissed same was preferred after the limttation licafion under Section 5 of the Umitation ^ct appeal was rejected and in consequence, 8t|at®SLtomits tfiat in vi®wof the judgment SlwamSuoelw Sam»Vs. Puwuriat appeal wscs dismissed on the grourKl of the First Appeat and against such order s not r^aintainabte. r the Apex Court, the instant r®N4sion is Sd/- DfflRENDRA MISHRA Judge (^^l^) v-n