..^\ 8061 'aHnaaooyd ^IAIO JO 3GOO 3H1 JO ST T S/n NOISIA3H ^IM^ dO Om'SW c^'^ ("o"o)-[nd^Iqu-Iv-^U^SIa bco^tra^s^—'•BfnSjng 'JO^OQHOQ sq^ q§nojqj, —*^f^o!M'^, <qjB§sj^^qqQjo 9;B^§ sqj, •^ •\^!L ^^~---^^^\<^y^^^^^^\'-^{ Q9AO[dLCT3[ "IAOQ pQJT^Qy UOT^duOOO^ » 'SJ^^X £99§V 'qgms L[S9JBis[ Lireyg^q-o/s ^/ _jjpure^ (q§UTS jnp^qBg fsj, •t : SlM3GNOdSay .—g n?s ^.1 s'a 'ni snsj^A (00) ^.(h§Jns-^OWSTQ 'Jnd^Tqmv 'jndjBpo^ 'p^o^ p^qg *o/^ JO^OBJ^UOQ - uop^dnooo 'sj'eoA: ^^ 9§v 'q§mgqsojB^j mpy o^ -o/g L[§UTS j^mn^ qsouiQ ('O'O) ^.rn§jns-^ou^sTQ 'jnd-e^Tqmv 'JB§B^[ 3AJJQ UU9]/\[ •0/y 'j3§"euB]/\[^u^g - uoT^pdnooQ 'sj^oX ^g 9§y 'L[§UTS qssjBjsi m^y s^q •o/g 'qgmg jpmn^[ ^Jpuoq^i/M '17 ('d'n) Jndun^p ;OU;SIQ ^ nsqp^ 'Apjqgpq'ep-eo -o/y 'Qj:n;inou§v- uoT^dnooQ 'SJBOX Q-J7 0§y 'L[§UTS qs9JB^[ may o^q •o/§ 'L[§UTS j^mn^ ^oqsy 'C ('O'O) ^.rn§jns-^u^STQ AJPH^O uoB§^-eqg -o/y ('TO'S'S) 33TA-I9S - uoi^dnooo ^ 'SJPQX 9-17 9§V 'qSmg qsoj'e^ m^y 9^'eq •o/§ 'L[§UTS jamn^ qsofe^ ('o'o) B.rn§jtns-^wsia <jndB^Tqmv-ITSL[Bj,/pu^L[j, 'jndq^un^reg j^§^j\[ 'ppoj'eqoj'eqQ 'o/^[ ;'Fy - uoT^dnooQ 'SJ^^A Q9 ^§V 'q§ui§qs9JBj^ may 9^q •o/g t ^ s^uBpu9j9Q (q§msm^BqBg mpuajTQ •f: SlNVOHddV TTO^ / (01 'ON NOISIAay ^IAI^ y^dsv^Ia_J.v HHVOSIJJ.VHHO do lynoo HOIH ^ONOH SHI NI 1|3U98 •llUtt^ 33dna ojva /. .\ c^' HiGHCOURTpFCHHATTlSGA^^ APPS,JCANTS Defendants Plaintjff Civi! Revislon No. 191 of 2011 Birendra Bahadur Singh & others. Versus Tej Bahadur Singh and another. CIV8L REVISON UNDER SECTSOSS311S THE CODE OF CIVSL PROClDORr (SS: Hon'bie JVSr. N.K. Aaanwai. J.) •y»d»•»«»—«»«•<•«»»•.»» Present : Mr. H.B.Agrawa!, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jajsvv'ai, counsel for the appilcants. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State/reSpondent No.2. (09.09.2011) Heard on admisslon. 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 26.07.2011 passed by Civii Judge, ciass-!i, Surajpur, District- Surguja jn Civi! Suit No. 106-A/20-09 is under assali in the mstant revlslon. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: By fijjng app!lcatlon under Order 7 Ruje 11 of the Code of Clvi! Procedure, rejection of plalnt vv'as sought by applicants/defendants No. 1 to 5 on the ground that as per plaint, cause of action arose in the month of October, 2005 vvhich is not correct and, therefore the suit has been fiied vvithout having any cause of action and js jlabie to be rejected. 3. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dismjssed the appjicants' appiication Inter alia on the ground that tihe appiicatlon preferred on the same ground for rejectjon of the piaint has already been dismlssed on 23.3,2011 and this js second repeated appljcatjon. Further on the basls of grounds taken in the appiicatjon the sujt cannot be rejected at this stage. 4, Shri H.B. Agrav^aS, learned Senior Adv'ocate couid not point out any jjjegality ieading to manifest injustlce to the appiicants.! have also perused order impugned; leamed tria! Court has rightiy rejected the @ |«NKII»»INN1^ appiication holding the application fiied on the same ground has aiready been dismi'ssed. 5. !n vjewof abo'v'e, civii revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Hov^ever, applicants are free to raise ail the defences avaiiable to them In their wrltten statement and certainly the trial Court after framjng issues vvl!J decide the sult jn accordance vv'ith lavv'. 6. Since the matter is very oid, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the sult expeditiousiy, after settiing the issues if not settled tjl! now. — Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^