wiTHEMWlilfisiJMnuemw^i^lwii- AtBIU^PUR CJl.No. fia^OF 2008 REVISIQNIST: ve&i.Q? -:;^I'?^ w^^^-^ ^ Smt. Neera Bai, aged 4 years, wife ofShri Kushal^ ^casfe ^Kewat, T^^ Fadaliia,tehsilBiUia,districtBilaspur(G.G.) {DefendaMXl.Dr.ffiLA^ ::'.l':::^':;'VEIlSUS;::-::::l-'.,;'::^ ••^^ ^S proENTS:'^..l:;:,':-:''^^ ^ Mdietan^ Yadav, resulenf ofviUage CMdli|puri^tahsit^^^^ Wlas^(C3ahat6sgaib^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^a^^ ~ Titlsirani, aged 20 yeare, son of SbnGayaErasaxl, liesuifiiit ofviIlageKapa,tehSUTakhMpur,^st(ic^^ [3)^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^ viUageDl]ioUbhatti,tahsitNawagaill,dis^ ^^molabai, aged30 years, dauglitCT ^^ residemtofvillageRa|di,ta^ State of Chhattisgarh, th^^ Bilaspur (G.G.) fflefi&aBra./wy.s./ CIVILREVlSIONllNDiERSECTION1T<15<>F •-T^E-.G|>C>EaO ^WU.31^0CEllURE.;:-t9(18-: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No.110/2008 APPLICANT Smt. Neera Bai Versus RESPONDENTS Mahetarin Bai and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J PRESENT:- Shri Somnath Vernia, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer, for the State. ORAL ORD ER (22-2-2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. Legality and propriety ofthe order dated 7-1-2008 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class II, BUaspur in MJC No. 15/2006 is under assail in fhis revision. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that during execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.lSO-A/1996 dated 23-8-99 passed by Vth Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur, it was pointed out fhat there is a mistake regarding Khasra nuraber of the suit land. For its correction, an application under Section 152 of C.P.C. was filed by the respondent/decree holder. Earlier on 25-8-2003, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Then again the same application was filed on 2-9-2005. Vide impugned order, the above application was allowed. 4. Shri Somnath Verma, leamed counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh and others -v- Gurbachan Singh and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 136 would submit, the respondent has to file the application under Section 152 of C.P.C., within a period of three years from the date when the defect was pointed out or came in her knowledge and this 7. 8. aspect of the matter has not been considered by the executing court and the matter needs reraand for decision whether or not the application preferred by the respondent is within limitation and its effect. Shri Mishra, leamed counsel for the respondent could not controvert fhis legal position. In view of above, without entering into the merits of the matter, suffice it to say, leamed Executing Court failed to see Whether or not, the application preferred by the decree holder is within limitation and its effect. The above question goes to the root of the matter. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the application after deciding whether or not the application preferred by the respondent is within limitation. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith. 9. The revision is accordingly partly allowed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwai - Judge