BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) o;. CIVIL REVISION N0. l^ / 2006 APPLICANT ©EFN0. 3 \^f fct'^' ^%^"i ^•y ^- -w NQN-APPLICANTS ,/"" 43LAINTIFFS ^" ^" RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS .Chhagan son of Shri Ishwar Singh Madharia, aged about 34 years, resident of Near Radha Kishan Mandir, Bhilai - III, P.S. Bhilai - III, Sub Tahsil Bhilai - III, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Indu Patel, widow of Late Ravi Patel, aged about 25 years, 2. Sanket aged about 2 years (Minor), son of Late Ravi Patel 3. Ku. Bhumika daughter of Late Ravi Patel, aged about 3 months (rainor) 81.No. 2 to 3 are the minors, through their natural guardian mother Smt. Indu Patel, widow of Late Ravi Patel. 4. Shamkunwar, aged about 55 years, wife of Shri Lakhan Lal Patel, All are resident of Shikshak Nagar, Nutan Chowk - Bhilai -3, Sub Tahsil Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai - 3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through - Its Chairman, C.S.E.B. Danganiya, Raipur, Tah and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electaricity Board, Bhilai - 3, P.S. Purani BhUai - 3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) l^. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Disti-ict Collector, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ./'-"" CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 XI-HC-78 v5-ac| +11^<<11 9h^ll^ ^Nicn^, ^Tfl<M^<o, fctcrti^y C: ^. r^- ^ ^ 200^ 3:n^T cra^? (<{c(i^cj<^£T) ^T^T^rf^Tf^ cT§TT3TT^T$h^ich •^ €1; Kvr <& ^Rn'^K^rficr^TT^r 03/01/2007 Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, Heard cn admisslon, By order dated 27.9.200^ Additionai Distria: Judge (F.T.C.),| piaintlff was exempted from the Court Fee Act on the basis of the piaintiff did not possess propert1/. Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, conceded that after receipt of t| appllcant herein did not. raise an^j did not pray for any opporturt of the matter, the impugned ordeij of Court Fee on the basis of the r|< with. This revision beingdevoid| Consequently, M.(C.).P. ^, dlsrnissed. cour|sei for the appllcant. C.C. as per rules chl^f<yl41^ HTR^ff^ tel^l'<i^«l< ^3Tf^T3TI^T passed by Shri A.K. Dhruv, 11th |Durg in Ci'yil Suit No. 22-B/2008, the payrrjent of Court fee under Sectlon 35 of the report of the Naib Tahsildar that a|iy agricultura! or. immoveable le^rned counsel for the applicant fairly ^e report of the Nalb Tahsjldar, the objection before the lower court and |ity for ieading evidence. in view exempting the from r|eport of the Tahsildar cannot be |of merit and is disrnissed accordlngly. lo. 2302/2006 for grant of stay also Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O. c^