G l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 140 OF 2006 APPLICANTS: (Plaintiff) RBSPONDBNTS (Defendaats) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Vs. 1. 2. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. 3. 4. 5. Vasudeo, aged about 35 years, son of Brijbhusaii Brahmaa. JhaUtu alias Lala, aged about 32 years, sou of Brijbhushaa Brahmaa. Peela Prasad, aged about 29 years, son of Brijbhushaa Brahinaai, Rajendra, aged about 25 years, son of Brijbhushaa Brahmaa. Kamin Bai, aged about 55 years, wife of Brijbhushan Brahmaa, Bofh R/o Vfflage Jopa Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund C.G. Bhuni, aged about 53 years, son of Swaraj Prasad Dubey. A. Sjaat. Kupeet Bai, aged about 54 years, widow of Late Shri Ganda Rai, Chiataram, aged about 34 years, son of Late Gaadarai. Yugesh Kuinar, aged about 28 years, son of Late Gaadarai, Usal Kuinar, aged about 22 years, son of Late Gaadarai, Bhujbal, aged about 20 years, son of Late Gandarai. AnU Kumar, aged about 18 years, son of Late Gandarai. Siat, Gayatd, aged about 31 years, daughter of Late Gadarai, Snit. Kaatibai, aged. about 30 years, daughter of Late Gadarai. Kumari Bai, aged about 25 years, daughter of Late Gadarai. Heniaat Kiiiaari, aged about 18 years, daughter of Late Gadarai, Prabha Kumad, aged about 16 years, daughter of Late Gadarai, a minor through her natiiral guardian xnofher Snit. Kupeet Bai, widow of Late Shri Gadarai, Marar, No. 1 & 2A toK are the residents of ViUage Dhamantoro, Post Nartora, TehsU & Distiict Mahasamund. Dharmu, aged about 53 years, son of Sukalu alias Ledaaga. Boderu, son of Sukalu aUas Ledaaga, aged about 44 years, Dmjan, son of Dhanwar, aged about 53 years. 9iiiliSSiS^S ^iiiWf^i -^- 6. , Vishaoibhar, aged about 44 years, son of Rainsiiigh Patel. 7, Bahur Siagh, aged about 52 years, son ofParasrain, No. 3 to 7 are residente of GraBi Dhamaatori, Post Nartora, Mahasaniund. PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODB OF CIVIL PROCBDURB. 1908. . (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present- Shri M,L, Sakat, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. Shri N. K, Malviya, Advocate for fhe respondents, ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 10/11/2010) 1. By fhis civU revision petitioners has chaUenged the legality aad propnety ofjudgment aad decree dated 29/7/2006 passed by First Additional Distdct Judge, Mahasamund in civil appeal No. 44A/2004 filed agamst judgment and decree dated 31/8/2004 passed by 1st CivilJudge Class-1, Mahasaaiund iEicivU Suit No. 22B/99 whereby 1st CivU Judge Class-1, Mahasamund has dismissed the suit for dainages of Rs. 18,000/-, lower appeUate Court has also dismissed the civU appeal. 2. Shri M.L, Sakat, Advocate for fhe appUcaate/petitioners aad Shri N. K. Malviya, Advocate for the respondents are heard, 3. Judgment aad decrce ofboth fhe Courts below are perused, 4. As per judgment and decree of bofti fhe Coiirts below present petitioners have clainied damages of Rs. 18,000/- agaiast fhe respondents on ftie ground fhat they are owner ofthe agriculture land which was attached by Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 146 ^^T 1 ^s^^ s ^3f^% 1| ,s?/ ^ ^ 8. of ftie Code of Cnmmal Procedurc, 1973 (ia short fhe 'Code5) ia a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. Judgnient aad decree of bofh fhe Courts below reveal fhat as per evidence of appellaat No. 5 Kamia Bai one Jhadu Ram has clamied right over fhe property on tfae basis of sale deed aiid she had filed suit ^aiast Jhadu Raai but no descnption of siiit has been given by the appellaats. After appreciating fhe evidence aad pleadiags of the parties bofh fhe Courts below has dismissed fhe suit aad appeal of fhe appeUants on fhe ground that appeIlaats/plaiatifFs have not proved ownership over fhe suit property, Learaed counsel for the petiUoners vehementiy argued fhat bofh fhe Courts below has failed to exercise fhe jurisdiction vested on it by not awardiag fhe damages to fhe petitioners. On tiie ofher haad leamed counsel for fhe respondents opposed fhe civU revision aad subniits fhat concurrent findiag of boffa the Courts below are not Uable to be disturbed m absence ofany illegaMty, In order to award daEaages relating to agricxUtural produce plairitiffs were xuider obUgation to prove the fact fhat plaiatiffs were owner of fhe suit prbperty aad ftiey have prevented by fhe act of fhe respondents from takiag fheir crops aad respondents have benefited by takuig crops on fhe laad but ia fhe present case present appeUaats/plaintiffs have failed to prove fhe aforesaid facts. After appreciating fhe evidence adduced on behalf of fhe parties bofh fhe Courts below have ardved at a saiae findiag, On perusal ofjudgment aad decree of bofh the Courts below based on concurrcnt fmdmg of facts ofboth ftie Court below, I do not fiiid glaring defect or illegaJity or pen^ersity m fhe findmg warranting any interference m exercise of t^- ^ ^ revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, civil revision is devoid of merits and saiae is Uable to be disndssed aad is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge -r^