© T IN THE HICH COURT OF JUDICATUE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No.^ ?> /2007 APPELLANTS 1). 2) ^ Sint. Kamla Bai Wd/o Late Deep Chand Parekh Pradeep Kumar Parekh S/o Late Deep Chand Parekh Both are the resident of Sadar Bazar In front of : Jain Mandir, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^)^ Municipal Corporation Raipur Through : Commissioner Office of the Municipal Corporation Raipur Distt Raipur (C.G.) ^.^""" .•...-;.^^ ^'^ ^^•••••" t 3). ^" 2) Indra Chand Parekh S/o Late Dharam Chand Parekh R/o 33, Panchshil Nagar, Raipur Dist- Raipur (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar ^ S/o Late Deep Chand Parekh R/o 29, Navjeevan Society Panchpedi Naka, Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODDE READ WITH SECTION ^OF MUNICIPAL CORPQRATION ACT. Wl^ "~~"7 tHC-78 ^" TFTOTl^TT^F \dw| ^qi«|«<l,tP-^l^-'Ko, R«wyx .c\^:.:^...9?./.ff.'^.. ^^ 3IT^9T^FEp (^cli^d,^) Wt20 3TT^STq»Tf^ffcP asngn^sT^ro? ?^HST?;CTf|cT3n^^T cpi<iIo41Ti +ii«ioT^rfe^l^Rn^ix ^)3iRt+i3n^5T SB: HON..SHRI JUSTICE N.K.AGARWAL 25-1-2010 disinlssed 431y ShriY.C. Sharmawl applicaiits, Heard on adniissionl FeeMng aggrieved bj XIIth Additional District 4 No. 7/2006 whereby and applicaiits has been partition is pending aad biDidin.g upon the Munic| med. Facts of the case, iii| As per tlie recorded in fhe assessniel sazae was siibstituted by 2 ia applicaiits'> place by p appeal prcferred by fhe below on the ground tiiat the parties iii fhe Civil C<j would be certamly biadiiii Municipal authorities shal|l favour, the ultiaiate decre< Haviag heard leani( aay illegalily or pewersity] th Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocates, for fhe the order dated 19-3-2007 passed by udge (FTC), Raipur ia Misc. Civil Appeal whereunder the appeal preferred by fhe oxi fhe ground that fhe civil siiit for iiiy order passed by civil court v^ould be ipal authorities, this revision has been brief, are as under:- », the naiucs of fhe appUcaats were at Mst of Municipal Corporation but the :ecordio.g the nam-e of B.on-appllcao.t No. ^.ssing ao. exparte order. Agamst fliat, the ^licaats has been dismissed by the Court ^he sziit for partition is pendio.g between >urt and ao.y decree passed io. that suif upon the Municipal authorities aiid fhe record' th'e name ofthe person in whose ia the said stiitwould be passed. |d counsel for the parties, I do not fmd |isi tlie order passed by fhe Coiirt below. <11*1CTI^*TT^ ^•CTC|<^|iqi«<l,tPTn1^1<10, RrtWy cA 9^/07- 3n^STq»TfeTN» ^ansn^^T^ira! 311^91 traq? (ijc|ijd<ri) Wt20 ^ g^TTSR^f^T3n^5T It is tdt.e law' that ,ui) HTeguladty leadio-g to this Court should not iat^ under Section 115 ofC.P.j Therefore, ia view substaiice, is liable to be i cpi<<F«<TITi*ii4ioV^ft^^l ^Rit^ix ^3iR|+i3IT^^T ^less any patent iUegalily or'inaterial niajjiifest injustice to tlie appllcaats is shown, trfere iii exercise of revisional jurisdiction p., in aiiy order passed.^ of fhe above, the revision beiiig saiis jmd is hereby disinissecl. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge