IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G) CIIVIL REVISION No. W 5/1 2003 S-mg\-e Bench /€ PETITIONERS 1 ) Lal Virendra Bahadur Tiwari DEFENDANTS S/o. Shri Rangnath Tiwari Aged about 46 years, Occupation-Advocate & Cultivation,R/o.Beedpara Ward No.13(Old No.8) Sarangarh, Thana &Tahsil Sarangarh,Dist:Raigarh(C.G) Smt. Rajanigandha Dubey *\ S/o. Shri Raj Kumar Dubey Aged abour 42 years, Occupation-Housewife R/o.Baloda (Akaltara) Presently residing at Village:Sutra,Tahsi|—Khatghora Dist : Bilaspur(C.G) Lal Rajendra Tiwari S/o. Shri Late Rangnath Tiwari Aged abour 36 years, Occupation-Agriculturist R/o.Beedpara Ward No.13(Old No.8) Sarangarh, Thana &Tahsil Sarangarh,Dist:Raigarh(C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (No.1 PLAINTIFF & REST 1) Smt. Sumitra Widow. of Late DEFENDATNTS) Tarachand Pandey Aged abour 75.years Rlo.Chotematpara,Ward No.6 Sarangarh,Tahsil-Sarangarh Dist : Raigarh (C.G) 2) Smt. Shanti Bai Widow of Late Damodar Tiwari Aged abour 80 years Presently residing at Darogupara .Tahsii & Dist : Raigarh (C.G) 3) Ramji Tiwari, S/o. late Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari,Aged 75 years @@ Rlo.Village:Mudpar, Thana & Tahsil : Sarangarh Dist: Raigarh (C.G) 4) Surchandra & Bheekham Tiwari S/o. Late Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari Aged abour 70 years R/o.Village:Mudpar, Thana & Tahsil : Sarangarh Dist: Raigarh (C.G) ) g 5 State of Chhattisgarh, Throuh-The “D Collector, Raigarh (C.G) REVISION PETITION UIS 1% THE DE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE { L; 3.06.200 23 fr the apcnt. Shri H.V. Shanna, counsel o plia Heard. ”J This nevision p6t1't1‘on is‘ ”10.03.2003 passed by the leaxn di dad rected against the order te ed Civil Judge, Class-II Sarangarh 1n C1v11 Sult NO 109/ 1§98 takmg on record the Sec1al Poer o Attorney executed by the petmc The order-.sheet ipdicates that issued in View of the physical in l h u el as committed an error in taking 0 Power of Attorney j The provision which ’haVs Act of 46 of 1‘999, which came in “‘down that ‘in exercise of its pc Court shall not vary or revers a except where the order, if it had' ;e of a suit or other proeEdirl fnally dpsed of he suit, or ve i iso t p w f / ner in favour of Ram Lal Tiri wai th y n e Power of Attorne has bee r to the leamed counsel for the *apacly of the plamud Accordin :1 record e ahdavit and Secia th f pl W it “ u&iw 0 a y; to force-on 1.07.2002 clerly las «ter under “Section 115 the Hih e any orer made or a lad deciding an issue, in the cours been made in favour o'te part i- applying for revision, would ha ( t g appelant, te Cort bow h incd hy Ad aeen orporate menment ': i } g d ny rer} cg, fh y _ otherf§rgg§edip§s. In this, Vie‘ malmamable and as-'s11ch aceqfdihgb; it"is dismissed as < the applicantg‘if‘ sol adviséd. uregulanty m the unpugned 01 uregulanty has b€en commrcted an occaSlon so anses Consequently, M‘C P No i),00 and. LA. No.8482O 3 for urgant hearing also stand dls Cemfiad copy as per Rules V of e atter, th revion is: no th m e si t i t b fajd nd, t caimo e eltertne a h. o uc It shall, however, be open t t hg y , f or o callene an ’en‘or deect ier if he feel any error defe o b ti a pa é , ct r y'the ral Courtin anrapel, if 29/23 5/Q3 ed f. pos o ;g_ IV k ‘ ’ ‘