ppllcant Lalntlff, P.b. @ivil Revigien No. 2“ 4“ ¢ Chamra Son o£ Bihari, age 45 years Resldent of v1L;;ab Dand aacnhall and ;ahsll Kargl Koad, Distt gllasgur C G‘ V&r$us l ) Xaxa Hlrclal hon of Eoorajball ag$ 4G Years, R/o Gran Band Bachhall Thana & Tan. Kota. Shrl R P M1$hra, tne then Tahsildar Kata Through Collector, Ellaspur. C G. xw// REVISION UVULR bECTIOV 115 OE T&E PROCEDURb CODE. ”CIVIL CIVIL i \‘ IN Tdn nIGi CVURT OF CdHATEIaGAR% AT BILAS Un C G. wk? " r—!— XI-HCL22 2.3.2005: None appears for the a plicant even at the second call. This revision petition' been tiled by the applicant against the , impugned order dated 123.2 03 passed by Civil Judge Class l Bilaspur, i‘n Mic No. 33/2002> by which the execution application filed under Order ‘ 21 Rule 32 of the CPC was ismissed on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove that no applicant committed any breach or the judgment and decree dated 26297 passed by CMI Judge class ll Bilaspur in CMI Suit No. 56 However in view of th amended provisions of section 115 of the CPC and in view of the deci ion of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Shakti Coop Housm Society, Nagpur Vs Swarj Developers ‘i and others reported in (2 3) 6 S.CC 659 and in the matter of Surya i Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC, 675, the instant revision is maintainable as even~ifthe application of ‘ the applicant was entertaine by the court below, execution proceedings ‘ would not have been termin Thus in View of the a endment in section 115 'of the CPC and the Judgment of the Supreme Co rt mentioned above this reViswn petition is dismissed as not maintainab Sdl- Dhirendra Mishl‘a Judge / (@W) ‘ s - i n a l .