IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR c ^-' ^/ CIVILREVISIONNO. l^ OF 2008 ^|.s ^. ^v;3u'w v f. .:^"y!:!y^' UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 PETITIQNERS DEFENDANT N0.1 DEFENDANT N0.2 ^l.s^^ v :. <»" y"' ^' te RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF N0.1 PLAINTIFF N0.2 PLAINTIFF N0.3 PLAINTIFF N0. 4 DEfENDNAT N0.3 / DEFENDNAT N0. 4 > 2. ,..1. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Raisaheb Banwarilal Agrawal, Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Krishna Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, prop. Krishna Vihar Colomy, S/o Snit. Late Bela Devi Agrawal, W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, R/o Naya Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Prabandhak, Shaskiya Pashu Prajanan Prakshetra, Shashkiya Dairy Farm, Sarkanta, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Officer-Incharge, Joint Directorate ofVeterinaiy Services, Government Poultry Farm, Bilaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Secretaiy, Agriculture, (Animal Husbandry),State of Chhattisgarh, Mantrayalay. Bhawan, RaipurfC.G.) 4: The Collector, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) 5, Avinash Mehta, S/o Late Chunnilal Mehta (Adopted Son), Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Shri M.K. Gupta, Ex. Tehsildar (O.I.C.) 1988-89) through the Secretaiy, Department of Revenue, C.G. Government,\ Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. ~^ —^^s^s"' ^'•'-1. DEFENDNAT N0. 5 Dr. M.1. Shrivastava, P.C.S.R. O/o Joint .Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur (C.G.) ,^Ll»L-A an^i-^-i'^w ^<B sn^l ihtjjsfc -s-Br-^pnffpT, »^i*!'i<».•^?TR"P: ^.^^.1 HI*tWI »»*tt<h sn^s '^Kt^yw^ff' T«n^T•Hft? 3WW ^rai^f^^^^CTf ^f f%^ 'ti^i'^u "SBTHON'BLE SHRI JUSfiCE'N.W AGARVTO: i3-11-; fortHe appiicants. /^dvocate for respondents No. 1 to Shri N.L. Soni, counset Shri G.D. Waswani, Govt. 4/State. Shri Somnath Verma, couns^! None for respondent No. S, fiouc Shri Ravish Verma, counsel Heard. The instant revision is dj 21-11-2008 passsd in Civil Sui!{ Additional District Judge, Biiaspifr Vi/hersby and where under an appiication ftied by the applicants Civji Procedure has been rejected. ^! for respondent No. 5. tioughserved. respondent No. 7. •ected against {hg order' dated No.12A/08 pending before VI! mder Order 7 RuSe 11 of Code of The applicants has raised an objectjon in the C-ivil Suit filed by the State under Order 7 Rute 11 c^ the C.P.C. on the ground that by vvay ofsaid suit the respondents Nb. 1 to 4 herein are chalienging the decree which is passed 19 years back and therefore ths instant suit is time barred and deserves to be dismissed. The iearned tria! Court upon hsaring the parties recorded the prima facie finding that suit <' t'.: 5^^^^^.^•^'fy^*'^^^*^-'^^^ ''>*-.'?! ::f^i^f^^tr r-'~'~'1^. ^5?^?^' i'±-^'^;n:Tn?f^'.''-'r^w?ti^i^J/t*^^' •^—^^.•^.^' awffm, B'tfwra, fawoy ^X£;J^,|;L/A<3| 3n^-<RW-(^3s^i»> ^ £i CTTOt'aftVa.nSff ® vN?pfrTW)?tf-fttet^ ^afflwsn^t does not seems to be time barre^i in view of Section 17 of Limitation Act and dismissed the apf(licatton. Counse! for the parties is essentiaiiy a mixed questron of| decided by the tria! Court after and therefor? the matter may be r^ deciding the question raised after fr^ frdm Havlng heard counsel for th^ parties and having perused the . impugned order, i am of the con^dered opinion that the issue of ilmitation, in the facts and circum^tances of the case, cannot be decided without framing the specjfic issue and without recording evidence thereupon, therefore the [srder impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to dscide the question raised after framing specific issue iin this regard and aftsr recordlng evidence, thereupon aiong with 1 other issue on its merits in accordance withlaw. i in view of above, the revisiori te aitowed. No order as to costs. subrr|its that the question of limitation law and fact which has to be fran|ing specffic issue in this regard, Imitted back to the trial Court for ing the issue in this regard. xSdA N.K.AgarwaS ^Judge f^' Biiii.T—itrtfrin^uBiai-n"<fr.