IN THE HZGN COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / A , 1 Civil Revision No. ^ it) /2009 ^; Single Beisch Applicants :- ^ ^c^ ^•y^ ^^.•••" ^- /?• Rakesh Patanwar age about 22 years, son ofShri Khileshwar Prasad Patanwar Kamakshi Patanwar age about 22 years, Wife of Rakesh Patanwar, both of them resident of Jora Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur,Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Sushekhar Rao Bhosle age 56 year, Son of Late Shri Malhar Rao Bhosle Smt. Seema Rao Bhosle age 50 years, Wife of Shri Sushekhar Rao Bhosle, no.3 & 4 are resident of Near Satya Services, Purana Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Resuondent: VERSUS ^'^Khjleshwar Prasad Patanwar age 54 years, Son of Late Shri G. L. Patanwar, resident of Khamtarai, Ashok Nagar, Near D. L. S. College, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Civil Revision Under Section 115 of The Code Of Civil Procedure. XI-HC—78 ^ r3ni^t^Nr ^H^T^TRW +' Nl^ttT ^HT^ ~3^!> *;^IFT?^R, ^Til^^ fN^rray , c, <e. N(.. ^^o^ 3TT^?r°lra^' ('1|^!^<si<^) l^nwe^^T^r S.B. Hon?ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal ^N^H 'RT^ff ^ 'fe^t T^f^R ^3?tRR*3^T 01-09-2009 Shri Kamal Pandey, couns^l forthe appjjcants. Heard on admission. The instant revision is dir^cted against the order dated 06- 08-2009 whereby and whereundjer the appdcants' applicatjon filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P. Court. Brief facts of the case are . has been dismissed by the triai that the applicants hereln moved an application under Order 7 Ru|e 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the plaintiff has no right to fi| the fact that the marriage betw^ because such marriage can be |e Civjl Suit seeking declaration to |en defendants No. 1 & 2 js void declared void only on application fiied by other parties under Sec^ion 11 of the Hindu Marrjage Act and the said suit cannot be fiied. The trial Court held that t| not seem to be barred by Sectiorj hie piaintjffs suit prima facie does 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act and issue framed in this regard shal| be decided on its own merits on the basis of evldence which majy be adduced by the parties and dismissed the application; hence|th»srevjsion. -3-^ .c,..g,..^.a;..-....&.. -^^ 0^1 .Itam-: .sii^r-^Tl^N' -ff ^ After hearing iearned c^unsei for the applicants and after perusing the record, since the i^sue raised is still aiive and shail be decided by the trial Court whii^ deciding the issues framed in this regard. In the opinion of this ;ourt that no jurisdictlonai error has been committed by the Trial C<|urt in rejecting the applteation fited by fhe appiicants. Thereforei djsmissed. the revision faiis and js hereby Kvr J Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge