/\~ ,^Ti BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT C.R. No. BILASPUR F4 %?•' APPLICANTS PLAINTIFFS .E^' .^ iy^%/ %^.¥F 'Vi^/ /'^V.7 ^yy ^z/ '^y 1. Pavan K.umar, son ofMadan Lal Jain. aged 52 years 2. Madan Lal Jain, son of Sagunchand, f aged about 75 years, 3. Praveen Kumar, son of Madan Lal Jain, aged about 45 years, All the three resident of Shivpara, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), VER S U S NON-APPLICANTS DEFENDENT ;- 1. Bhagwan Sbri Sita Ramji Mandir, Gandiii Chowk, Durg, Through Shri Kishan Khaadelwal, son ofManakchaad Khandeiwal, aged about 62 years, reside- nt ofKhandelwal Colony, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh), S/ Shri Kisan Khandelwal, son of Shri Manakchand Khandelwal, resident of Khandelwal Colony, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh), y3. Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, son of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal, aged about 56 years, resident of Gandhi Chowk, Durg, Tafasil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Contd.,2.. - : 2 :- (^. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION flS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^-* XI-HC-78 ? duq-^l^lrt^, y>Tt1<<-l'l<S, Rrtl'i'iy'! C.-^^Q^SIS^O^ *ii+irt! ^ln^ 31T^9Tq^P (I}crf36I;5) siT^sTtprR-iicii ^TaiTsrrtsTsptricp sroraR^ifer an^sT 29.06.2005 vlras Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. for the applicants. Heard on admission. This revision has beea 3.3.2005 passed by First Civil A/2004. It appears Ihat in a pendin^ claim under Order 8 Rule 6-(4) counter claim wsa, the plaintiffs (C) ofthe C.P.C. for exclusion nature ofcounter claim set forth suit. This application for exclusi^n the trial Court vide impugped plaintifFs have filed this civil revi| After tfae new ameadmeikt Procedure w.e.f. 1.7.2002, it has| not, under fhis section, vary 01) deciding an issue, in flie course the order, ifit had been made in| would have finally disposed oftii^ In view ofthe said this Court, this revision would passed in favour ofthe applicant^ Ad|vocate with Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel amen<inent <nilFo»<TI-1*1l<1rtl't|''la'<:l 'i[ul'«l>! ^srf^iHsn^sT di|rected against the impugned order dated (udge Class-H, Durg in civil suit No. 8- civil suit, the defendants set forth counter of the C.P<C. Afler setting forth, this |filed an application under Order 8 Rule 6 |of the counter claim on the ground that different than the original nature ofthe for the counter claim was dismissed by |order dated 3.3.2005 against which the Mon. in Section 115 of the Code of Civil been provided that the High Court shall reverse any order made, or any order suit or other proceeding, excq)t where favour ofthe party applying for revision, suit or other proceedings. brought in C.P.C., in the opurion of o|fa not be maintainable as even if order is /l^/.f in this revisionjt shallidispose^l oflhe XI-HC-78 TPTcCT^^T^ ^3vS[ ^Kjirt-y, ui-al-<-i<i<», Rirti'i-iy'; ^ > /?.Mo,'S3 /•^^r" 3TT^?T Taq? (^c|?jc|^) 3IR9Tc|!TR^ic|) ?T81T3IT^ST(pqtcp ?RTTW;;:iTf^cT3TI^CT o- This suit pending before the Court b^l for hearing, the same is dismiss^ At this stage, leanied be given a liberty to file order passed by the trial Cou4. copy ofthe impugned order. Applicants may avail 1fae| Certified copy ofthe im^u applieants after retaining the weeks fromtoday. Withtheabove There shaU be no order asto cote <(ii<i[c(i<11i *f[*iwT^'feL<il •<Rf<-di'( ^ail^TOT^ST )^low. I am not inclined to admit the revision jsd. • coijuisel for the applicants submits that he may app^opriate proeeedings agaiast the impugied Cou4. He also prays for retuming the certified liberty is granted to the applicant. |remedy avaUable underthe law. im^ugned order be retumed to counsel for the pt(otocopy ofthe ssune, ifdemauded within 3 observat^ons, this revision stands finally disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 1 ("~