-^K^ S.& . no(- ^xe^\& 'yv?t OLctv^r<}--fTe^[ tfxgGL-^C. • a^\3[epi. AMENDED CIVIL REVISION .'»•• BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUSR Civil Revision No. 31/2009 APPLICANTS NON- APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANT APPLICANTS 1 South Eastem Coalfields Ltd, through Chairman, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. through , Director (Personnel), South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. South Eastem Coalfields Ltd., through Chief General Manager, Kusmunda, South Eastem Coalfields Limited , Kusmunda Area, Tehsil Katghosra, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 4. South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. through Dy. Chief Security Officer, Kusmunda Area, South Eastem Coalfields Limited, Tehsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 5. South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. Through Dy. Chief Security Manager, S.E.C.L. Bilaspur , Tah & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS M/s Rudraksh Security and Allied Services, through Proprietor Captain Sanjay Sharma ,son of Shri K.L. Sharma aged 43 years , R/o A-43, Sharma Apartment, Plot No. 32,Sector 10, new Delhi-75 ^ CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTIO^llSOF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ~T ^s^^i <a»^n^ 'S'Sf'^TPTIoT^, ^tll-H^Ko, [®lcni<!-l*j>< _^_C,^.Mo. ^j^l ^2^0- ^ri^T Tr^w ((i°i?l<s<<^T) 37T^T'SFT f^tNT ^^ 3TR?T $b^j^ ^^rrw ^rf^T'?n^r S.B. Hon'bte Shri Justlce N.K. AaaAvaI 12-03-2010 Dr. N.K. Shukla. Senior M^ Shukla, counsel for the applicants. Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved by the ord^ by Second Civil Judge, Class-1, whereby and whereunder the aj: applicante under Order 7 Rule 1 dismissed, the instant revision has bcjen Facte Ibriefly stat©dare as und^ In a sujt preferred by the n^ herein have raised objection by filin®| Rute 11 of C.P.C. that the perioct c|f and, therefore, the suit js not mair djsmissed at this stage. In reply to the said pleaded that after completion of extended the agreement and, theref cannot be rejected. The tearned frial Court aftelr dismissed the application holdlng fiat cannot be rejected. Having heard learned counsef perused the order impugned, in ti^e Court, ttie question raised by the ap| ^pft^r Tn^ff "^f fs^l <f^i^i< ^3tRm3TT^T locat® with Shri Shsrftendra ^r dated 05-09-2006 passed B|laspur in MJC No.18/2008 ^plication preferred by the of the C.P.C. has been >€jenpreferred. d0r: 4n-appWcants, the applicante |an application underOrder 7 agreement is alr^ady over Itainable and Is liable to be orle applic^fion, the Ron-applicant Iws year, the apptieanis have fore, at this stage, frie plaftnt hearing both the parties, at this stage, ttie plaint [ for tiie applicantsand havmg consldered opinion ©fthis >licante herein is essentiatly a .,.-'^^-..:-^f-~ '-HC—78 WHCTT^^Ich '3"^ ^i^id1LI, ^tTl^^Ko, [®i<ni<-i^< __..^.:.&......^.^...l.'.J...ol ^...^.......^............................^......^^Q_ 3TI^T 'q^F ((i°l^<sl<^) 3TI^T ^T f<rli<=h "(T^T ^TT^T^FHW Kvr '^TTW^f^T W^T "^ teat-ned question of fact which is to be framing a speciflc issue !n this regarcj. In view of above, the committed any jurisdictional il(egal|y rejecting the application at this revision is disposed of and it is di^ected teken by the applicants herein in Court below shall decide the same this regard in accordance with law, de<|;kled by the trial Court after Ofll <=hl^fd^i1r1 TTR^ff ^ f^^t <F»1^K ^3Tf?R3TI^5T Court beiow has not or material irregutarify in Therefore, the instant that if sudn pleas are i^ir written statement, ttien the ^ter framing specific issues in its own merit. st^ige. th4ir Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge h