n IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPU] CIVIL REVISION N0. ^ OF 2010 PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT Kishore Chandra Bhoi, S/o Late Shri S.S. Bhoi, aged about 72 years, R/o. Q.No.52/1, Mathpara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). Versus RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF 9. ? ^'%^t. ,?-^:.y »"*-•"' »&•"" Smt. Leela Sahu, aged about 44 years, W/o D. Sahu, resident of Q.No.52/1, Mathpara, Mahamayapara ward, Raipur, District Raipur (CG), through power of attomey holder Shri D. Sahu, S/o Shri Indrajeet Sahu. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 sn^s ^n ft-ii'* frii sn^i s»tii<» ?^';z[raRTq', 'S^ltWT®,fsldl'y^ ^^....^.......M.p.o, sn^i Tia^T (' p) S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 05.03.2010 Shri BD Guru, Advocate for|applicant. Shri Raja Sharma, Advocat^ for respondent. 05.02.2010, passed by Vlth Civil suit No. 82-A/02, whereby an^l whereunder the applicant's apptication filed under Order 7) dismissed. The brief facts of the casei filed a suit for eviction and applicant/defendant in the year 'hwfd'il-l 'qTOaf ^ l3T3t <Fflt$K ^sifgqan^r l-1eard on admission. The instant revision is dirjected against the order dated Judge, Class-1, Raipur, in ch/il Rule 11 of CPC trss been are that, non-applicant/plaintiff arrears of rent against the 2000. The applicant fited its written statement. The triat couft framed issues and thereafter the plaintiff adduced her evidenc^ and now the case is fixed for applit^nt/defendant's evidence. At this stage, the applicant the ground that the plaintiff/non evidence that no notice has demanding vacant possession ofl •ground that the court fee has not tjieen properly affixed. Shri BD Guru, Irarned cou^isel appearing for the applicant woutd submit that the court bel<)w has acted in excess of its jurisdlction in rejecting the applica^t's application without deciding has moved the application on ^applicant has admitted in her |ieen sent to the appllcant [hesuit premise and also on the \.., _„ l~'"?USSfeE5Sfe3T--iff; —78 W^V W fq-tietl ^SH sn^ »i*iicti Sahu L ~TST «4l<1ldA|, SiTll'M'IS, fqMiyy sn^i^ra^ (" ^giW^ifeiCT^r it on merits. He would further subjmit that a plaint can be rejected at any stage of suit under Order 7 1 have heard the counsel ^ppearing for the appticant and perused the order impugned. The suit is pendfng ?ince since then. The matter is fixed fcj 20(%) and parties are litigating r defendant's evidence. On the basis of statement in the eviipence of plaintiff, ie instant application has been preferred. disposal. At this stage, in the consifleredopinion of this court, the court below has rightly dismlssed Supreme Court in case of V. Rhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, reported in AIR 1979 S order to get a decree or order forjeviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act it 14 q-iNi<i<frn '^m^ff ^* ft^ <^i^« ^aiRnsn^T Rule11 ofCPC. The suit is at the verge of ^he applicant's applteation. The ;-1745 has already teld that in not necessary to give notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act. In view of forgoing, 1 do jnot flnd and substance in the revision. The applicant has utt^rly failed to demonstrate any jurisdictton illegality/irregularity co|nmitted by the eourt befow. The revision, being devoid •is hereby dismissed summarily. lof substance is liable to be and Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge 11J1-