c ^: ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA8PUR CIVIL REVISION N0.1M^_/2004 • S?s Beiici APPLICANTS x^ x^^'^ ^IK ^ > 2. 3. -<^' «/'~NON-APPLICANTS 4. ^" .5. € > 7. 8. ^' Naohiram, S/o Naitram, aged about 58 years, Occupation-Agriculture, Maheshram, S/o Raruha, aged about 61 years, Ganeshram, S/o Raruha, aged about 63 years, Occupation-Agriculture, (a) Padum, S/o Keshav, aged 50 years, Occupation-Agriculhire, (b) Punilal, S/o Keshav, aged 45 years, Occupation-Agricultore Mausamibai, Widow ofMadhav, aged about51 years, Occupation-Agriculture, Revalal, S/o Madhav, aged about 31 years, Occup^tion-Agriculture, Phuleshwar, S/o M adhav, aged about 32 years, Nehru, S/o Madhav, aged about 24 years, All the above are R/o Village-Botalda, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) -VERSUS- 5'/(/- ^. Tularam, S/o Netram, aged about 60 years, Occupation-Agriculture, R/o Village-Botalda, Post & TahsiI-Kharsia, DistrictRaigarh(C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh through Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURX 4- <. ^^ '"^Rt^^ 'WI^ ^ fe^ if^^R ^ 9A280B: Shri Ra|h/ Shrivastava tenmed ec^nsel for th&applicante. Ku. Deepati Pandey tearned cour| t for ttie TesponchaTt No.1. ha^ The instant re^sion petttton sectfon 115 of the Code of CMI passed by IV CMI Judge Class-11 \ftrfiich the preliminary issue No.3 liQhl of the bar under sectfon ^ST^S (herelnafter referred to as "Code" fe>r the appiicants and Ihesuit has teen hek| Ra^arh t»®l filed t^ the applk^nts under ; ttie order dated 24.7.2004 in GMI suit No. 101-A^OOS, by ttie malnteinabUtty crf the suit Jn ttie C^ihattlsgarh Land Revenue Cocte oojwenjence), has been deeided s^ainst 1 to be mauntainabte. tfie Learned oounsel fer the of Nathu Vs. DBbancte HuMate and 822, coTtend» that e respondCTt r^oratton of posse^on uneler which V is i^ect«Jon the greurKl ttiai after avaUing the remedy, thoygh Code, the suit dfthe responcterrt No.1 section^7 (X) ofthe Code. It is turther tt is simpty for recovery ©fpossession remedy of filing an applteathm under a thous^) ureucces^uUy and as sueh ttie SKdtoni^iO the w^s appltear^ relying1 on the judgment in tbe matter ^awts mported in 1964 »U»UPage jMo.1 had made an a(^>tk^Aton for (rfthe Code before the TehsJtdar, same was tlme bssred and g»such imaj<|x3es8A,i(ly, imder ttie pnovisions eS the terrecl a<»orcl}r®tofrte(Miow^ons of • kibmittedthatttie sutt isnol fortttte but ^nel therefcwe, the re^onctent haet ttw 1250 ofthe Coote whieh he avaited sjuit was n©tiTOifr^unsAte. se( on Gt:PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. / A. ^.. •3^r ...c.K-.j^^./m. -2-.- ^atfeH^lt^? On the ^ier hand leamed the instant suit te based on titte as the partitfon ttie suit land was allotted to hte < that sutt tand was arftotted to his shaF&, 250 oft^Cocte and thesaunewas i be mainteinabte as tt te bas«ion tttte her contention she relies on ttie othars Vs, Kashtoor Chand and i for the responctertf No.1 submtts that rint»has claimed that jn fte temUy ond v^hen h®cli8G0 T8d the fect rrawed an a^lieaticwi w ter seetten 1 and ss su^i the suit was hdd to re(»verycrf possessiwi. ti «j^pCTtGf in the mattCT of RoMnl ftnaul and • roported In 20001W, 141. I have hearcl counsel fsr the A onter. In the judynent oBed by tfie fl^*r*^^ and gone ttwsygh Vne jmp^ied h"» the rm^er crf hferthy Vs. Dilbande Hussain and othere ^upra), |t has baed h^d that the pro^ston® conteined uncter sedfon 2S7 <rf e GoNe are attiaGted in the sutt histituted under secfen 9 of the Specffie Relief ^et fer pe^oring ttie possesskan of fte land to a di^ossesseci BiianuBwami a|Td »»eaggriwBCt BiumfewsuN te fwA baind to resort to the rem^lie&preftANt w^'8ec8(Mi 2S0<rfthe<^icte.lti8 the diseretton of the aggrieved paify tf hje Wk»to stiaightaway larir^ a suft for the estabtishment ofhisttttetothe land^nd t©reeover poseessteRlhereerand tt is (^en ft)r the auimiswBmi to reewe^ chdce. In ttie present cas^ateo the No.14}|afcrtiff to recQvw tte poeses^on | hjs ^hase in ttie femity partition and crfth&h'ke nature as insUtuted by the held maintajnabte. Findings reeordect 1 ttie posseseton fci any manner of his has b^n ffied Isy ttie reeponctent ttw land whteh has beenaBotted to before the trial Gourt was rigNfy th®trial Gourt ate©finel support ftwn -5 Gi: PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. p^ 4- -s^ l^iray ,.r..t^...^i/a... ?T) r\ <. ^ jwnsut ^ .^ Y -^- the Judgment of the Ap^x Court jn the n^atter i it has been hefel tti^ the cMl sutt byj restorartion of possession i8 notbarred uN®rsectlon ^7 oftheCode. Thus after hearing eounsel ftxj material availad&te cn recorel, 1 am crf preferred by the appUeanyEtefendant ha4 dismissed. AGeopdinglyttwdismtesed. the parties and going threugh <he |h®o(^ijwi ttiat tie IB^OR petffion no rrortt and ttie same is Itafete to be Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge ^^fe^l^T cS %»hirtPwaaiS (siq^a)O^WI^R the Bhumiswamt taased OR ttte for Gt: PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000.