IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision. g^ 012007 Applicant Plaintiff Respondent Defendant Sardar Sujan Singh, S/o. Late Bhagat Singh, aged about 60 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Kostapara, Raigarh,' Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Banshilal, S/o. Bhoklo Sahu, aged about not known, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Village Adbhar, Tahsil and District Janjgir- Champ (C.G.), presently resident at - Behind Jute MU1 Police Office, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) CIVBL REVISION UNDER SECUTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE \3W| '<|iqio>«,tP-^ltl<|(»,f^rtl'd^ *l I*ICTI apTT^ ^\ ,.y.5.;..8.3rJ°^20 3n^5T^TRlTiicb cT8TT3IT^^Tw<li<P 3n^?T qa^p (^cii^ci<£;) B^ITfflR ^rf^rT 3TI^^T SB: HON. SHM JU8TICB 19-1-2010 Smt. Hameeda Shri Y.V. Raman ^i Heard on admissidn 2. By this revision, aad decree dated 21-^ Distarict Judge, Raigarh chaUenge. 3. Facts of the casi cpi<<io<nri *ii<ioT^ft^l^i xRi^$i^ ^3iRl*i3IT^^T N.K. AGARWAL Sidpiqui, Advocate, for the applicant. |ao, Adv. for respondent. l^gality and propriety of the judgment 1-2007 passed by the Ist Additional |in CivU Appeal No. 2-B/2006 is under receipt dated 10-10-1 ;, tn brief, are that the applicant/ plaintiff tastituted a sup.t for recovery ofRs. 6000/- based on ?95 said to be executed by the defendaiit. The trial Co^rt vide its judgnient and decree dated 27-2-2006 passed in Ci|vil Suit no. 10-B/2006 dismissed the suit holding the said r^ceipt to be executed on 10-10-1994 and holding the suit as t±nebarred. There-against, the appeal prefen'ed by the applicajat/plaintiffwas also dismissed by the trial Court. 4. Smt. Siddiqui, lea^ned counsel for the applicant would submit that tlie said r^ceipt was in the handwriting of the defendant and ifthere ^s any correction /mterpolation, then, the saaie was made by |±iedefendarit and not by the plaintiff (I-W-78 ^s^^- *1MCTI ^1TT^ \dw| '«|«lc)<l,V^lwiO, ROW^ ,.fe^:..S^G.:.?.?;.//O^T .1 ^ W^2Q sn^^TcprRRra? ^8H3TT^5Tw<licp blfc 3n^9Tq^q?(<jc|ij6|<e{) s^TW?^eT3n^5T and, therefore, leamed| dismissmg the applican| 5. I have heard learri tlie 6. Leamed both the to a conclusion that possession of the appli<|:ant date of execution of receipt was in fact, corrected as 10-10-199^ the actual date of recei^ is based on appreciatio^i failed to point out committed by both ti^ jurisdiction. It is trite| jurisdiction, fhis Cour|: evidence. 7. In view of above, liable to be and is herebjy <pi<iIo<nTt +ii*ioT^f"fe^£l\Rit5;ix ^?3iKl*i3TT^5T both the Courts below have erred in ;'s suit. ;d counsel for the applicant. Courts below have concurrentiy come in the sald receipt which was iu :ant, fliere is correction wifh regard to said receipt. Date of execution of 110-10-1994, which was umlaterally ^ in order to save limitation, as, as per ^t, the suit is time barred. The finding of evidence. The applicant's counsel Ulegality or material uregularity Courts below in exercise of their law that while exercistag revisioual wUl not enter into appreciation of a|ay revision.being devoid of substance is dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ \