ry', IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR, C.G. CIYILEIYISION N0. tj^ /2004 a<^^s, Q^^ (CivU Revision U/s 115 of C.P.C.) APPyCANJ PIAINTIFF RESPONDENTS ^DEFENDANTS '^^' Stnt.ChaitiLBai, D/oSirishlal Kalar, aged aboiit 40 years, R/o Village G^tagudum, Taihsil Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS / 1) 5 a) Lakhanlal, S/o Sakharam, .^•^ ^ & ^ ^ ^b) ^ (""^ ^•' .^ J'<s^* < .* >^§:-- ^ d) '^' 2) ^ 3 $^]>- Kalar, aged about 48 years, Devcha&d,S/o Sakharam Kalar, aged about 46 years, Smt. Teekam Chand, S/o Sakhauram Kalar, aged about40years, Smt. Asmotin Bai, D/o Sakharam Kalar, aged about 38years, Trilochna, D/o Sakharam Kalar, aged about 36 years, Respoiidenlno. l a) to c) R/o viUage Bhaianmdi and d)R/oLargaon Markatola, Distt-KanlEfir aaid €)R/oviflage Vishrampxuci, Distt. BastSB-(C.G.) Prataq? S/o Sukial Kalar, aged about40yeacs, R/o village Petidcavan, Tahsil KaiifceT, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Mehattar, S/o Hagam Ganda, aged about 50 years, R/o village Gattagudum, Tahstt Kanker, Distt. Bastar (C.G ) Smt.Shyama BaA widow of Ramesh Ganda, aged about 46 years, @Aattisg3rh through .Kanker, ;JDistt; ?^M-i (2) 'vm ^ ^/> _3 Chamsingh S/o Rameshwar Ganda, aged aboist 25 yeacs, Charan Singli S/o Ranieshwar, caste Ganda, aged aboiat 22 years, Rfispoadent no. 4,5 &, 6 R/o village Bdar, Taihsil Nagari, Distt. RaEipisi (C.G.) Sonau, S/o Hagani Ganda, aged aboiit, 46 years, R/o viUage Gattagadum, Taihstl Kainker, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ^ ^8) Shyamlal S/o Ayato, caste Gond, agedaboi3t 40years, ^ 9) Bise, S/o Ayato, casite Gond, /' agedaboul 38years, j; ^10) Bimal S/o Ayato Gond, aged aboiil 36 years, ^ 11) Smt. Puaaiba widow of Ayato, ^ Gond, aged aiboxit 60 years, Respotidentno. 8,9,10,11 R/o village Amgaon, Tahsil Nagari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through £he Coliector Kanfcer, Distt. Kanker(C.G.) CrVILREVISiQN UNDERSECTIQN 115 OFT^^^^ PROCEDURE CODE ^- Being aggrieved by fhe order dated 11/12/2003 passed by £he3rd Additional D^&ict Jodge (F.T.C.) Kanlcer, Distt. KanlcCT i^ Misc. Civil Appe^-ao. 2/2002^which is ari^ng out of Ae order d^d 13/02/98 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Kankff in Civil Suit no. 55:A/95 fhe s^plicant prefer mstant revision before fhis Hon'ble Court amoiigst fhe followmg facts and grounds amosgst ofeers. '-c^%..^ i -^ zattisgafh tlu-ougfi""—.''STQ^^^^ •TN'Lt.i.. . . ^—...—-"' ~;-. :" i \, ,\^ y 'y 3i?T^'^T R<lich WT 3TI^T St)*1W J-'.'. --^,'' %«• ^ -/•' ^ Kvr WWtTtft*11<l» •3'sr ^ii4id1Li, ^Ti1<i4i<o, t^Tray ^.i?..,-...fe......N.s.,.....(.£4^-^^e^ ^qr^r^w (li?tsq^) ^<nw^f^3^y S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. 23-09-2009 Shri Vishnu Koshta, couns^ Shri Sunil Sahu, counse! ft and9. ShriAjayDwivedJ, Dy.G.A.I Mo.T2. Shri Vishnu' Koshta, iearr| applicant, on instruction, seek^ withdrawthis revisjon with libertyl that may be avalEable to her unde| The iiberty Is granted, as Accordingiy, the revislon the aforesaid ilberty. Learned counsel for the app| the jmpugned.order.be retumed to h| Regi'stry is dlrected to return order on counsei's furnishing authen ^Nid^ii^ >ii*i<viT ^f 'fe^ <Fai^i< ^^iRpcrsn^T .aarwal for the appljcant. )r non-appiicants No.1(A), 1(8) |or the State/respondent led counset appearing for the permission of this Court to. to avai! the appropriate remedy theprovislons of law. pilayed for. dismissed as withdrawn v/sth |!cant prays that ceitlfied copy of im.' • . . -\ |he certlfied copy of the impugned |icated true copy of the same._ r' 1 Sd/- -^' ; N.K.Agarwal n judge 5ira^T ^^i^ ^"K^ U^-IK'IM—FS/95—11 /2008-1,00,000.