1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BIIASPUR,C.G. pe-rt^itshcr B«ag^ssnAr Tuqemffit" Debtor Respondent Decree Holder •^-•^. >^-'\<^u ^•^'^y>- ^\...ly- y Respondent Judgment Debtor Respondent Defendent :^ ;^L3 "I'S'Y AS/U-i y 5'-^* / ^ @^?n)'fi?st l^^^^llTl QllRB'iB iSBniSili Civil Revision rr?5 «;—of 05 Shankar Sing S/o Jagmohan Sing Kanwar, aged 20 years, agriculturist, Nawagaon, Tah.Katghora, District-Korba Versus 1. Mangal Singh S/o Adhwar Singh aged 45 years. 2. Shuklal Singh S/o Budhwar Singh aged 40 years 3. Lal Singh S/o Budhv?ar Singh aged 26 years. (\U Kanwar Agriculturist, village- Rangbel, Tah.Katghora, District- Korba 4. Jai Singh S/o HariSingh aged 55. years. 5. Kripal Singh S/o Heera Singh . aged 50 years. g)6U—Caste Kanwar, Village-Nawagaon Jkte-Xe^-^fc/^>"' A-tofc-li-y^6'"*•' £ State of C.G. Through the Collector, Korba »....-' Civil Revision U/s 115 R/w Section 151 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 12'^-07.2005 passed by the learned^'Civil Judge Class I Katghora, passed in the execution case No. 4-A/69- Lachhan Kunwar and another versus Itwar ^Singh and others. Fact of the cases- ^' wiTan^igmro ^Sf '•^TPIRrif, »Tll-M*IG, fs<<'l!'Mlj,< ..,^&.N...b.-,l.\?..ZO.r-. sn^i ira^? (^qf^^s?) None appears for tfae Ku. SangeetaMishra, The case was called t^ the applicant. In fhe circumstaaces,! but to dismiss'this revision. The revision is dismissl t? qaqferih wwff'? 1sIA ^N<9^ ^aiRm. '.L. for tlie State. ice, even fhen none appf tnr fhis Court is left with no ;d for noii-prosecution. Sd/- N- K. Agarwal ; Judge option