UL L i INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CTVIL REVISION N0. l^ OF 2011 APPLICANTS/ DEFENDANTS 1. ^' ^N^ ...A >.^ ^x^ ^••^Y Kanti Bhai, S/o Shri Danabhai Patel, Aged about 55 years, Caste Gujarati, Occupation Service Pandari Raipiir (C.G.). Dhansukh, S/o Shri Danabhai Patel, Aged about 53 years, Caste Gujrati, Occupation Saw Mill Owner. Mangan, S/o Shri Danabhai Patel, Aged about 56 years, Caste Gujarati, Occupation Agriculturist. Sint. Ganobai, D/o Shri Danabhai Patel, Aged about 48 years, Caste Gujarati, Occupation-Doinestie Work. Gangabai, D/o Shri Danabhai Patel, Aged about 46 years, Caste Gujarati, Occupation- Doinestic Work. Laxini Bai, D/o Shri Danabhai Patel, Aged about 43 years, Caste Oujarati, Occupation- Dom6stic Work. •k-^ RESPONDENTS/ : 1 PLAINTIFFS m All R/o Kawardha, Beside New Kalpana Lodge, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). VERSUS Ganpat, S/o Shri Danabhai, aged about 37 years, Occupation-Labourer, R/o Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Kabirdham, Kawardha (C.G.). CTV1L RBVISION UNDER SECTION 1 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 t'BB- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANTS DEFENDANTS Civil Revision No. 16 of2011 Kanti Bhai & others Versus NON-APPLICANTS : Ganpat & another CWIL KEVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE_QFjC!VBLraiQCEDURE fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passedon 07.02.2011) 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 25.10.2010, passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Kabirdham, in Civil Suit No. 28-A/2009, whereby the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed holding that the question of limitation has to be decided after framing issue and after recording evidences of the parties which may be adduced in the case, is under assai! in the mstaut petition. 2; According to the applicants, the plaintifis filed a suit on 20.11.1994 against the applicant's father Shri Danabhai Patel. The said suit was dismissed'on 12.02.1996 for want of prosecution. Thereafter restoration application was filed, and after 12 years the instant suit has been filed against the present applicants on 24.04.2008 which is barred by principte of res-judicata as well as the suit is time barred. The trial court held, the above issue raised can only be decided aftei er •i s y.'p" '''it&nSrf^ framing issue andafter recording evidences pfthe parties which may be adduced in the case and atthis stage the suit carmot be dismissed under Order7RulellofCPC. 3. Shri Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the trial court has wrongly calculated the period and has wrongly held prima-facie the suit is within the limitation, whereas, if the limitation is calculated from 13-.02.1996 to 24.04.2008, the suit has been filed beyond the period of 12 years and the suit is time bared, 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the applicants aiid pemsed the order impugned. 5. The questions, whether the suit is barred by limitation or on principles of res-judicata, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are mixed questions oflaw in-fact and have to be decided after framingissues in this regard and after recording evidences ofboth the parties thereupon. 6. Therefore, in the considered opinion ofthis coiirt, the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the order impugned. However, it is directed that the trial court shall ignore any observations made by it while passing the order impugned and shall decide the issues framed in this behalf, on its own merits, without being influenced by any ofttie observations made by this court. 7. With the above observation, the revision is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu ^