f IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.l CIVIL REVISION N0. ^3 OF 2010 ABPLICANTS j^efendants) ^' \\v^ ^^' - A^y-'' ^•"..•^ .(••^ ''^*' ...^ ^^--""' \^"y rSPONDENTS/ •Plaintiff ^Defendants y :1,. Deepak Jain, S/o Dr. M.L. Jain, ^ aged about 32 years, R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Pratibha Jain, aged about 26 years, W/o Shri Dipak Jain, ^ R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1.. Raghvendra Dhar Diwan, S/o y^ Late Raghuveer Dhar Diwan, aged about 60 years, R/o 194, StreetNo. 28, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2/. Navdip Jain, S/o Shri Gyanchand Jain, aged about 29 years, R/o Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Mukesh Sharma, S/o Shri Uday Sharma, aged about 34 years, R/o Adivasi Colony, Kushatpur, Raipur (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE b.-..l.,!s l'vf"ff!S^K^S'!'S^: S^fl!^iSS^^Si:'SSt?SStS h^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kymar M&sdu-a Qvfl Revision No. 63/2010 APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Deepak Jain and anoflier Versus Rag^ivendra Dhar Dhvan and Ors. ApDearance: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, counsel for the applicants. ORAL ORDER (2.07.2010) Heard on admission. (2) By the impugned order the Trial Court has rejected applicant's application uader Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which he had preferred for dismissing the suit as not maintainable in view of tfie provisions contained in Section 257 (g) oftfie Chhattisgarii Land Revenue Code. (3) Leamed counsel submits that in amended para 4-A of the plaint, plaintifif has stoted Ihat if the lands belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant are demarcated, fhe dispute will come to an end. According to leamed counsel the plaintifiF impliedly pleads Ifaat the suit is for demarcation, Aerefore in view of Section 257 (g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the same is barred. (4) Having heard leamed counsel for the applicants, this court is of the opinion that the maintainability of suit would depend upon tiie nature ofreliefclaimed in the suit. Plaintififhas prayed for a decree of V"pemianent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in •_^y-^^.^~s, -2 ^(^ plaintifFs possession over the suit land himself or by his ^ents, labourers and employees. It would thus be clear that the suit is triable by a CivU Court as the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant decree ofpennanent injunction to a plaintiflE'. (5) The suit does not appear to be barred under any provision of law. (6) The instant revision fails and is herebyjdisnussed^ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge r