IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.1 CIVIL REVISION NO.-———^——/2007 ^o REVISIONISTS Non-applicants ^'" >'"^\L^'?] .•"' ^"^ A^ l.Sint Kaamin Bai W/o late Ramkishan 2. Deepak S/o Devi Prasad Purvaie 3. Devi Prasad Purvaie S/o late Rainkishan. Survanshi AU are the R/o - Tifaraa, Thana- Civil lines, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- BUaspurlC.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ l.Smt. Chaiti Bai D/o late Ramkishan Applicant Suiyavanshi W/o Ramawatar Survanshi R/o Jarahabhatha, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt.- BUaspur [C.G.] Non-auplicant no. 4, 2. Supermtendent Engineer (Store) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Division- BUaspur, Tah & Distt.- BUaspur [C.G.] -(- CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 384(3) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT. 1925 ^ ^> HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CiVIL REVISION N0.80 OF 2007 REVISIONISTS/ NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS APPLICANT Smt. Kaamin Bai and others. Versus Smt. Chaiti Bai and another. CiVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 384(3) OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSIONACT.1925 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri Sanjay Patei, counsei for the petitioners. Shri Rajiv Bharat, counsel for non-applicant No.1. Ms. Ranjana Jaiswai, counsel for non-appticant No.2. Kvr ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31st day of January, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the amount has already been paid to Smt. Kaamin Bai. 2. in vjew of the statement made by learned counsei for non- applicant No.2, the revision has become infructuous. 3. Accordingiy, the revision is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge