'S^ET "4l'4l<yl'4, ytil'y'16, fsK'ii'yy (^p tlfflCfT VhHldr> "^1,200 3^l Tra^r (Ti?f3*l^) 311^1 VI R-liti ~^^ 3TT^T ?h+iiqi TOirw^ifeisn^i 8B : HON'BI^ «HRIJUST1C* DHIRBHDRA MISHRA WP t2&7) itO. 2654 QF 3008 Petltloaer/ Defendant Respandents Plaintlff V«arsut 9.5.2008 Shri JA Lohani, coun Sbri Arun Sao, GA foi <DI<l[^l<ftl ^IH^Tf "^f f^£tTf^R^R •^affipTan^fr Birajo Bai, D/o SUri Mahacaj Ji, W/o Hari Ram, Age-38 ycars, By Caste-Gound, R/o Vills^e-Kosum&hutta, P.S. & TahsU-Rqim, Dislt. Raipui (CG) Bu-am Bai, D/o Shri Maharaj Ji, Agc-35 ycai's, By Casle-Guuud, R/o. Vlllage-Kosiiinkhiita, TabsU Rajim, Distt. Raipur (CG) Smt Dhela Bai, W/o Joidha, Ays-7'2 ycars, D/o Sakhaiam, By Caste-Gound, R/o. V3Say,e Parsada, P.S. & Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Siat Dhetee Bai, W/o Gauesh, Age-67 yeara, o Saltliai'aui, By Caste-Goiiad R/o VlUagc Paraada, P.S. Ss Tahsll Abhaapur, Distt. Ralpur (CG) State of Chhattisgadi, Through The CoBector, Raipur, Distt: Raipur(CG) __ ^el for tfae petitioners. the State. ^wa ^"^il^-^i .^' li ^' ^•1- F iE-' tiJ^S^ <'s<~?f;T'.-':-. i'E^ '». 11 ^, '^,-« CHr1?^"^ XI-HG—78 311^1 ^iT Vt'U* ^fSTT 3?1^T Sti*1ich 'S^t -^W\ff\^, &v\wi<a, hwwy. WWirthHlth WI, 200 3^1 'V^! ('^3^*1) TOIIW ^fpl 311^1 z- The petitioners have dated 20.12.2007 (Annex CIass-II, R^im, Distt. Raii Order 7 Rule 11 of fhe same does not disclose th sult, has been rejected by 1 |ffled fhis petition against the order .e?iture P/l) passed by Civll Judge, }ur whCTeby their application under CpPC for rejecting the plalnt as the cause of action for filing the civil (he trial Court. From perusal of fhe have ffled fhe suit for perpetual uijunction agair the averments fhat they u death of its re(x>rded plauitiffs applled for record, however, the same including the Board of R& petition bearing No. 3648 Revenue, whlch was order dated 22nd Decem.bel open to ffae petitioner to i^ civil court questionlng fh\ Board of Revenue and the| such siiit shatl be ciTGumstaaces, the abovl furtfaer <»)i<<i<ri<fli *ii*i<nl ^f fs^ '(.f^K-^R ^?3ifin3ii^?i ]|)lauit it is evldeirt fhat (he plaintiffs d^claration of tttle, possession and \st fhe petitloners/defendants wlth ii|ihented the siilt property after the oi|?ners as thelr successors. The mutaltion of thelr iiames in fhe revenue |was rejected by the revenue courts i^enue. Thereafter, fhey ffled a writ t/04 agatnst fhe order of Board of dismlssed ty fhls Court vide 2005 with an observation tfaat it is 4istitute a suit in fhe jinisdictton of k coirectness of tfae flnding of fhe decree passed by the civil court in biitidmg on the parties. ta these ^ suit was preferred mentionmg ^i^^.-fcoti^'U^. Hf&ti fi&(XT ^?^ ^iG.ATfiu 3^1 «41AII<-1'4, ESitil^'Ko, fqc1iylj,< 311^1 ^il R;-)!'* ^ssn-sn^T ^ww HTWIT «»*<l<sh Sil^T 'q^R' (1clfj'!<<,tf) ?SIIW ^fe 3(I^[ ^ therein that the cause of rejection of their applicat Revenue and further Court with the aforesald disntussal ot)servations. In the result, this that there is no Ulegalit^, committed by Che Court order of Annexiire P/1. without substance deserv^ stage and is hereby dismi^sed pourt is of the considered optalon ', infirmity or jurisdictional error {iclow while passing the impiigned Accordingly, the petition bein^ te to be dismissed at the admission cftraf<?^ftTT tTTq^ff ^ f^t <^it$i< ^rsiRnsn^r |action arose to the plaintifi's after ^on for mutation ty the Board of of their writ petition by this Sd/- ~ i Dhirendra Mishra Judge