IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. _V_^Z/ 2006 ^ ^ 1 < Revisipnist 1. Dilip Thakur Age 55 Years / S/o Lt Babulal Thakur 1. Smt. Bela Thakur Age 50 Yrs ^ w/nDi1ii .V ^ / ^^ /^^ / ^'-' x' ^/' f^ ^^ w/o Dilip Thakur Both R/o City Kotwali Chowk, Behind Canera Bank, Budhapara, Raipur. VERSUS Non-Applicant 1. Pradeep Kumar Thakur ^ S/o Lt. Babulal Thakur Age 50 Years By Attorney Smt. Ganga Thakur W/o P. K. Thakur Age 40 Yr Temp. R/o Near Naidu G Resi., Ganesh Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur 2. Ashok Kum.ar Thakur S/oLtBabulalThakur Age 50 Years R/o MP Aayaat - Niryaat Office/ TT Nagar, Bhopal MP ^ Seeking^Revision of Order Dated 4/05/06 DJ Raipur, In MJC 09/06. REVISION U/s 115 OF CPC, 1908. /'1/^4-ii/^i 1\/l ^ 4-^i/"i t^- XI-HC-78 ^^TcFrf^rw ^l $^^TT^ ^l^ldl sbUlcb 3^ •<4l<<ICl<),^Tfl^<|(g, fadl^< ^ __ CL^.^^2_/fc^ fn^;-———/- W^ 200 3^i^l M5|<»»(<:i^3!9^ET) ^«tlW^Tf^T3TT^T 15-8-2006 Mr. Raja Sharma, learned Heard. The appficants have pref' ^T^rf^T^ WT^rt*^fe^ ^RZFC ^3:rf^T3T1^T 115 of the Code of Civil Procec|ure, as they are aggrieved by the order dated 4-5-2006 passed in MJ, preferred by the plajntiff" non"a|:| 2 of the CQde of Civi! Procedurel person has been aiiowed. Learned counse! for the sounse! forthe appiicants. ^rred this instant revision under Section has been passed in utter disreglird of the provlssons of Order 33 Rules 2, 3 and 5 of the Code of Civsi Pro particulars required. in regard/to. •the partjculars :of: the movabie ^ and estimated value- thereof and the manner prescribed for. sjgnirl .the.same :was,.1iab.Ie for rejectjo| .C.No.9/2006, by which the application plicant No.1 under Order 33 Ryies 1 and for permission to fl!e the suit as indigent appiicants submits that the above order |;edure, asthe plaintiffhad not mentioned |he plaint and suit and had not mentioned |nd ImmoyabSe property betonging to hlrn the same was not •signed :and. verified • in g and verlfying ,the pleadings, and: as such :as-'per pr6¥jsions;'of'Ord€r.'33'RuJe..'5::^^ the Code of Civii Procedure, ai(id th^'impugned order^has. been:passed. without cond.ucting proper en.q|jin/, oniy. on the basis of the certlficate given by the Ward Member. Learned counsei for thel Revlsion is maintainable, as ptaintiff - non-applicant No.1 \Af been passed in favour of the 4 appiicants submits that the instant Civii h case the application preferred by the |as rejecfed and the impugned order had efendants, irtthatcase, the 1VI..J.C. woyjci XI-HC-78 sn^T^rf^ri^ cfSTT^T^T^RT^ 'll ^opai T5^ ^I^M^, ^T{1^ll(o, fct<1I^y ^l^dl sb^lcb «***********•****/*«*^ 200 311^1 MST«*»(^cit^ci^aT) ^TW^fecfW^T have been terminated finaiiy, a^ pending before the Court below. ! have heard learned coun^ I am unabie to accept the forthe applicants, firstly 6n thegr^ Ruies 1 and 2 of the Code of Cil person, and in case, the appljc^ below after enquiry and the ord<| case, the plaintiff-'is directedto m| the deficit of Court-Fees is not | dismissed. Since the impugned | the ptaintiff, the proceedings w4 taking into consideration the bar Civi! Procedure, the instant CEv|i maintainabie and the same is reje|i At this stage, learned COL|| appiicants be accorded liberty to| underthe taw against the impugn( The prayer is granted. <?bi^I<n41Ti ^i*i^T^te^<Ri«i< ^3Tf^RT3T1^T on that date.there was no Civil Suit •e! forthe appticants. srguments advanced by tearned counsei ound that the applieation under Order 33 /i! Procedure is preferred by an indigent tion so moved is rejected by the Court ^r is passed against the plaintiff, in that ake good the deficit of Court-Fees and if made good, the suit was iiab!e to be order, even jf had been passed against luid not have been disposed of finally, contained in Section 115 ofthe Code of Revision, in the present form, is not cted at the motion stageitseif. nsei for the applicante submits that the file an appropriate proceeding available sd order. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge