.^ <7 \lz ^ 7SGENO "^;;^':^1 (»>^<*< BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) Sjsaie 'C.R.NO. /•6^~/2004 i.!.t'^!^ ^sei; APPLICANT DEFENDANT ^^ "v>"" NON-APPLICANT PLAINTIFF \ ®^"^'l..v z'Sateesh Kumar aged about 35 yrs (...•^\.^'' .. son of Kishan Singh, caste-Rajput, L-''^K&>"/•''' Railway Employee, Gangman, r/o Near Railway Colony Instt. Dongargarh, Tah Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS •f^y ^ ,-•< .-•t4y' $••' Gurvir Singh Bagga, son of Shri Prakash Singh Bagga, aged about 35 years, MANIHARI STORES, resident of Budhwaripara, Dongargarh, Tah Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 /i'^ XI-HC—78 B*nfe 211^1 ^ilfefNl ?8il 3(1^1 '"'Sst '^FTTRTq, ^Tll-y'lfi, ^cliyy r..C:^..M^.../.biJ.M- STI^t'q'RT ( !'m?ff^re^tTfSf! ^sifinsn^t l7.X2,2Q04 Shri R.N. Jha, counsel fo^ the applicant. Heaid on fhe question of^dmission. The applicaat has prefen^d fhis revision petition under Section 115 of Codc of Cinl Proccdurfc, 1908 being aggrievcd by the ordcr dated 22.9.2004 passed by leajmed Civil Judge Class-I, Dongergarh, whereby learned Civil Jud^ rejected the appUcation of ffae appUcant hereia fBed under Ordcr 7 Ruje 11 of CPC for rejection of tfae suit filed by the iioa-applicaBt her4in on tbe ground that the plaiut did not disclose thc causc of actio4, as the namc of thc non-applicant is not ^vritten m the (hree pronus^ory notes based on whlch the suit is filed. Having heard learaed coipisel for fhe applicant, I Iiave perused the copy of the applicatfon ^roduced by learaed counsel for the appUcant diiring fhe coursc of^tyuncnt aad also pcruscd the copy of the plaint. 1 The non-applicant/ptaiptiff filed a suit against the applicant/defendant for recov^iy of loan ataount of Rs.49,500/- advanced by him to the appUq'aot iti tfaree st^es as mendoned ia Paras 3, 4 &5 of the plamtj mentioned that on 15.1.2001 In Para-3 of plaint, it has been tbe applicant hereia approached the respondent herein for advaacepient of loan, which was required by him for the piu-pose of treatn^ent of his wife, therefore, a loan of i Rs.12,500/- was advaaced to fbe applicant herein aad after takiag loaa the appUcaat hcrein cxeculwi a pro-note and receipt in favour of + .//7 -HG—7i 3?: ^m T' vsw - te,| ^S-S, ..qpn^iq, TTS, .^^..^.(^.. 3R^!-q^i-(^^^) 'FRiIWtrftB sn^! 1 '*l'4i<n^l-i "wraf "tf 'fyst TfwCTT ^- non-appticaat herein antl app^nded his signatures. Smiilarly, on 20.2.2002 tfae appUcaat aga^n approached ftie respondeat for alvaaceiaent ofloaa for the saipe purpose and at that time also after takiug loan of Rs. 18,000/- the 4pplicaat has executed a pro-note and rcceipt on thc samc day. T^ictieafter, again on 10.04.2004 thc appUcant took the loaa of Rs. l^ respondent hereia aad ia Ue1 |,000/- for the same purpose firom the |i thereof executed a pro-note and asceipt. In paragraph-6 of the Jilaint, it has been incntioned that on demaad niade by respondentj and after giving assuraaee when applicant faikd to repay thc k>ap. ainount then thc respondcnt served a aotice on the petitioner on jl7.IO. 2002. In Par^raph-8 of the plaint it has been writteu fhat [instead of repayiiig the loan amount the applicant herein has sei^t the wrong reply of noticc dated 17,10.2002 through his couns4'l, therefore, cause ofactk>a arose to i-espondeat on 23.11.2002 for Ipling thc stut on account of scading a wrong reply of the notice. The^efore, the suit of the respondent is based on the advaacemeut ol" loan on three dates, also oa the promissoiy notes aud icceipts spigned ia token oftaking ]oau. Learaed counsel for the ^ppUcaat argued that siace the nanie of the rcspondcnt is not mentiojaed in aB the thrce promissory notes, therefore, leamed trial court oilght to have rejected the plaint under Onler7Rule llofCPC. I I do not fbad any substanjce ia. tbe argument of leamed counsel for the applicaat siace it is a ^iatter of evidence that as to whether the appUeant hcreia cxccuted ithc thice pTo-notcs attcr takiag loan 4 "%^i i.I-HG- '<<IAII^^, '^'^ftwTs, 'feiray .c^..'J.6.~I./.±t. 3W?I qil f^TRT "('qTST^IWllNi' TRiiwaftg 3?]^r 'tBiB^iSS ""iite. S ;!s» ishan ^Hf^NN''TH^f ^ f^st ^•airaHsn^i frointhe respbndent heffim,asn^entione(I in Paragraphs 3 to5oTthe plaint. Merety, because tUe narn^ of respondent is not mentioned in aU fhree proaiissoiy notes, at thiji stage, fhe plauit cannot be rejected under Otder 7 Riile 11 of CPC o^ the ground that no cause of action is available to thc rcspondcnt, T^ic trial court baa rightty rejccted the application of the applicant hereiiu by the impugaed order mentionms therein that the point xaised by the defendaut can be decided onlv after recordiug of the evidence. In view of foregoiug reasox^s, I am of the opiaion that leamed counsel for thc applicant has faifcd to point out any iUcgalily or material irregularifr in the tmpi|gned order. Therefore, this revision deserves to be dismissed and ^ccordiagty, it is dismissed at fhe adin^sion stege itself. | - - _ -^^-- Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo