a;; w^. .:SI- :!:li: ;1. ^^^t/y'vs^Y'^''v'-''<-/T^'*-'ru'l-''''>-i''^' u'k-/'^'^,'o'' iy ^ m THB HK^ COim^ OrCHMATt'I^^^ At BILASPUSR CIVXI/RKVI^ON m. AOTPLICAITTS OF3007 ^- ^" u</&r«^, 1. Jugnxram ^ S/ o .Umcdram^ aged ^^ ...^^K- ^^.y' .^--^ . ^& a.1x)ut 70 years, 2^'f&yrn^nQLnd S/o Jugruram, aged aboutSSyiears Prabliu Lal S/o ^ugruram, aged alx)ut32y€ars, 4. Dhanauram S/o Jugruram, aged ai:®iit26years, AA! belongj to Kurmi caste and are resident of village Amalipara, Tafasil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G, NON-APPl-ICAIiTS VKRBUS 1. ^^-^^-^^ r^'^'% 2.... ^^ Smt. Ashdk Bai widoe of Late Hemdliar tRam Deshmukh, aged aboutSSyears. Smt* Kalindri Bai D / o Late Hemdliar Ram Deshmukh, aged atoyt 25 years, Both are rcsident of village Amalipara, Ward no. 1 5, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ^ryi&^^^SXOMUMO&RgBCTIORilSQFTHECIV^^ COOE. 1908 . , . • ! ^. : : • . . . , L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R.No.85of2007 Applicants Jugruram & Others Versus Respondents : Smt. Ashok Bal & Another. Plaintiffs Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri'Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicants. Shri RM Solapurkar, Advocate for respondents. 1. 2. 3. 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 12th day of March,2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The instant revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 4-B/2006. The brief facts of the case are that, the non-applicants i.e. plaintiffs instituted a suit against the applicants/defendants for recovery of Rs. 21,000/- towards the damages. The applicants denied their liability for payment of said amount. The court below, based on appreciation of evidence led and submissions made in the case, dismissed the suit. There-against, an appeal preferred by the non- applicant/plaintiffs, was allowed and Rs. 12,960/~ has been granted as damages in favour of non-applicants. Hence this revision. 5. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the present revision is filed by the applicants mainly on two grounds firstly; there is wrong mention ^»w^.y 8. 10. Sahu in the Khasra number in the compromise decree, due to that possession could not be handed over in time and secondly; the. pjaintiffe have never came forward for getting possession ofthe suit land and therefore, the court below has erred in awarding the damages against the applicants. On the other hand, Shri RM Solapurkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that all the questions have already been raised by the applicants and the first appellate court, after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, passed the impugned decree. The findings are finding of fact and are not open to challenge in the revision filed by the applicants. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record ofthe courts below. The court below, after appredating the entire evidence and material placed on the record, has held that the non-applicant No. 1 & 2 are entitled for Rs. 12,960/- as damages. It is trite law that in exercise of revisional jurisdjction, this court can only interfere if the findings are based on no evidence or perverse. In the instant case, the applicants have failed to demonstrate any such illegality/perversity and also failed to show that the order passed by the court below is based on no evidence. In view of above, the revision being devoid of substancels liable to be ahd is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^