^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl CIVIL REVISION. N0. Sjogl^ Bencff ^/ /2006 Petitioner 0efendant No. 1 Respondents <^1[, J?laintiff No. 1 to 3 € 1 to3 Defendants ^s^y .. Surjeet Lal Sharma, Aged about 52 years, S/o Late Shri Doulat lal Sharma, R/o Qr. No. B-26, Adarsh Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba Versus Gurbhej Singh aged about 46 years S/o Avatar Singh Balvinder Singh aged about 44 years, S/o Avatar Singh ^ Hardeep Singh aged about 42 years, S/o Late Preetam Singh, All by Caste Sikh, R/o Main Road Korba. Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari aged about 37 years, ^j5. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, aged about 36 years, 6. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari aged about 31 years, 7. Umesh Kumar Tiwari aged about 29 years, 4 to 7 S/o Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Tiwari, i R/o L.I.G. 77 Sharda Bihar Colony, Tahsil and Distt. Korba, 8, Smt. Dalveer Kaur, aged about 56 years, W/o Sardar Lakhinder Singh R/o Ramsagarpara, Korba 9. The State of Chhattisgarh, ^ Through Collector, Korba. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SBCTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 ^ ^ ^" ^/l ^^ XI-HC-2211 ^^T ^6~gT[^^ ~^f^ ^T^a l- ^, ~3^[ -^Tqj^fq^ ^Tfl-CT^, "fa^IRTy C.^. N~b - ^TO^T^W^ ^ ••^- 2W.6 zr W^T ^T^T^R'^?[ 03.04.2006 Nb PaAel Shri Parag Kotecha, None for respondents Shri Akhil Agrawal, No. 9. Heard on adniission Leanied counsel for enforce agreenient to seU sai4 suit was filed by responden^ Judge Class-II, Korba, 50-A/2005 was ffled by them| agaiast petitioner ia the Dnring peadency ofthe suit P| 3 wifhdi^w fheir earUer siiit afresh fherefore, fhey have suit aiiy more. From perasal of the evident that no such plea ha^ Court below, Therefore, thej iiot maintainable, Howeverj under order 7 Rule 11 or Civil Procediire disputiag fh^ coilnsel for the thereaFter Coiirt otiUer '^Rf^Ffr;T ^TRdf ^ fe^t <fa<^l< i7'3=lNH^T?^T petitloner. >. 1 to 8. Lawyer for fhe State/respondeut anjd on M.(C).P. No. 466/2006. jfhe petitioner contended tiiat to to be executed by fhe petitioner, a |s No. 1 to 3 in ftie Coiirt of Civil 'eap:er, agaia a Civil Suit bearmg No. for specific perfonxiaaee ofcontract ^ofirt of Addl. District Judge, Korba. |o. 50-A/2005, respondents No. 1 to j^ifhout obtaiamg permissioii to file 4o right to contmiie the subsequent a^plication and mipugned order, it is been raised by the petitionerbefore msfaat revision cn that ground is if petitioner files fresh appUcation ^ft|er relevaiit provisions offhe Code of mairitaiaability of fhe subsequent ife^ XI-HC-22 3TT^T^I 3T[^T r^r ^' Kvr ^-sr ^qFn^r, -^-^CFTS, t^<ni^i< e ^' ^L.......A/. ^~re^i'^w% . ^STT^^T ^"^IWHitn suit, fhe Court below shaUsco^isider his application ia accordajnice wifh law. Wifh the aforesaid obsje In view of above ordje disposed of ^R^FN 1RT^rf ^ feTst 'n^?^7 '^^f^m.^Tr^r ^rvation, ftie revision is dismissed, ;r, M.(C).P. No. 466/2006 stands --^^-_ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [^it^^fe^