INTHEHON'BLE HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR C.R. N0. ^f)_/2010 4-^^' vf. ^•^•' ss"'" -.sA.. APPLICANT: Defendant no. 6 ^-^\-'i ?s-v-^ §^t •^,:^' RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs Def. No. 1 to 5 Sheikh Gulzar, aged about 57 years, S/o Abdul Hamid, Advocate, R/o Baikunthpur, P.S. . & Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mehndi Hasan, S/o Bande Hasan caste Musalman, aged about 55 years, Occupation-Service 2. Ali Hasan @ Sona, S/o Bande Hasan, caste Musalman, aged about 50 years, Both R/o Village Odgi, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 3. NaseerMohammed S/o Sheikh Mohammed @ Dukhan Miyan, aged about 75 years, Occupation Agricultural, R/o Village Champajhar, Tahsil Baikuthnpur, Distt Koria (C.G.) 4. Sairuh) Bibi, Wd/o Noor Mohammed, aged about 70 years, 5. Aashik Mohammed S/o Noor Mohammed , aged about 55 years, 6. Ramjan S/o Noor Mohammed, aged about 45 years, •:;B'i<^S£BS*3^3[SSSm»aB Def No. 7 to 18. 7. Ayub @ Teenu, S/o Noor Mohammed, aged about 42 years, No. ^o 7 are R/o Village Devri, P.S. & Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 8. Noor Bibi Wd/o Abdul Samad, aged about 38 years, 9. Asamdi @ Pammi D/o Adbul Samad, aged about 16 years, 10. Simmi S/o Abdul Samad, aged about 13 years, 11. Sheetal S/o Abdul Samad, aged about 12 years, 12. Shobha S/o Abdul Samad, aged about 10 years, 13. Somiya S/o Abdul Samad, aged about 8 years, No. 9 to 12 are minors, through their natural guardian mother Noor Bibi Wd/o Abdul .Samad, R/o Dalganjan Dafai, Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 14. Smt. Moharram Wd/o Abdul Siddiqui,aged about 40 years, 15. Smt. Sahidun W/o Rafique, aged about, 30 years, No. 14 & 15 are R/o Dalganjan Dafai, Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 16. Smt. Hamidun W/o Azad Mohammed, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Jhagarakhand Road, Manendragarh, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 3003 3lina330lld 1IAI3 dO 3003 3H1 d0 STT NOI133S y3QNn NOISIA311 1IAI3 (•3-3) (jndq4un>|!eg ) e.uox /jop3||03 L|6noj4i L|je6s!}4eqq3 jo aieis 'ST ("5'3) euo» -usia 'JndL|}n>|ieg o/y 'sjeaA z^ inoqe ps6e 'JIZBN poiULueyo^ O/M epsqnr •41115 •Z.I HIGH CWJRT OF CHHATTISGnRH AT MASRm ^ Simite Bench: Hon'bte Shri JusKce PraslRmt l&mi»Mislua APPUCANT RESPONDENTS Ciwl RBrisfon No. 70 of 2010 SheiWiGutzar Versus Mehralt Hffian and othera. CtVN. REVISION UNDER SECTION 11S W Ct»EOF CWIL ^ROCTDU^ Shri 0. N. Prajapati, counsel for Vhe appltesnt. Shri Sanjeev ^rawal, Pandl Lawyw fw Bre State/non-applfcffiri; No. 18. ORAL Ora^R (22.07^010) Heard <m admis^n. (2) The triat Court tes rejected defendaiffs / apftfKarffs applicattiMi under Onter 7 Rule 1 1 of C.P.G. (3) Plaintiffe have preferred Uw sutt fbr (tecteraKon of title <rf % share, pardtion and s^iarate possession as ateo <br the reNef that the aliCTtaUon made by some of the defaidanls is rwt bincBi^ on the yriaintiffe and is nuU euid void. i (4) In his appticatton under Oreter 7 Rute 11 of C.P.C. the affrfteant had started that in the eartier sutt, preferred by the defendant No.1 of the present suit bearir^ Civil Suit No. Q9-NQQ, the aBenation made by sw of the defendants wwe part of the plrading and the ptainttfls havir®made afyearance in the said suft, had the totwrtedge of the said aliCTation, therefwe the (xesent suit tor a dedsffaMon that those alienation are null and void would be barred by liiratation. He ateo l:a».i ^<p pra^ that stnnmons havenrt beai served in accordanoe wBh pRterS Rute 9 of C.P.C. and tha* proper Court fees has notbeenpakt. (5) WMte rqecUng the applKsrti<Mi, by ttie impugnedorcta-, thetrisd Court has (Aserved that Uie frtalnt does ncAoppeat to t»barred ynder any law and that tt has been submltted in acconfanpe wlth the procedure and after paymerts of required Court fees. (6) On perusal of the documents avaUabte on recorel of the CivB Revteion, it wouht appeai at (he suit is for cteclaraffion of % stere and partition. It is not merely for deda»aUonthsrt ttie adienaBon made by the defendants are null and vad. (7) tn wew of tiie etoove, tte que^ion as to wh^wr the suit woukl be banwl or not shaH be a mixed quesUon of law and fect wluch can only be gone into after recording evidence of the {MrtieB. The trial Court has not committed any iUegaltty or martertal irregitarity by rejectir®ttte ai^rficanfs appficaKon. The revteton ^il'icatton faBs auwl is hereby dismissed. (8) The afqallcant ^iall be at Ittierty to ratee affl pCTmisslbte defences jn his vnSten stalement whteh shaU be decKled by the triat Court in course of trial. Sd,/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '?-