CR-ulro c IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE ^.IS ATBILASPUR / , „ iti3!®@-msiia Civil RevisionNo.(-!^/%009 ii Applicant Appellant piss8r"..../<<rv' OaW6--"' Respondent Defendant Prabhu Vishwakarma aged about 35 years S/o Aliyaar Vishwakarma, Cultivator /o Village Sonpurkala, P.S./ Tah. Ambikapur Dist. Sarguja-C.G. Versus Bandhu aged about 50 years S/o Ronhaa, cultivator R/o Village Sonpurkala, P.S. / Tah. Ambikapur Dist. Sarguja. A Civil Revision U/S 115 C.P.C. against the order ^-J-ivSf dated(17.7.48)passed by the leamed District Judge Sarguja (Ambikapur) in the Misc. Appeal No. 10- A/2007 [ Prabhoo Vishwakarma Vs. Bandhoo }, which arose against the ordgr dated 16.7.07 passed by the second Civil Judge class I Ambikapur in the Civil Suit No. 20-A/2007 [Sewak Vs. Bandhoo] rejecting the application U/o 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. presented by the applicant Prabhoo Vishwakarma after the death ofPiffSewak Aagariyaa. Facts ofthe case:- ^^tjA^ The appellarit named above begs to state the facts ofthe case as a- under:- 1. That Plaintiff Sewak Aagariya filled on Civil Suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant Bandhoo who ^s^s^sssasss wW!m!W»«sa»saw»Bseai»B s»!)as ' •'^=; i S lo)-i aiAsTcRrfeira) (iaTr3ii^aTn;qra> v3T,T| -qi«irtt|,S^TFIS, f3R5Riy *lHril^qfep--Q^--s-)—--•-•• ^20(0 3IT^STq3^(ljc|fgc|^) s^iTw^if^raii^r *l^rd41'l *1K1riTtffe<<Sl ^RI^K ?'3I^»T3II^?T S.B. Hon' sn,»i Shri Viprasen Agrawa!, A^ivocate for applicant. The instant revision is flirected against the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by District ^udge, Surguja, in civil appeal No. 10-A/07, by which the appeal ^as been dismissed affirming the order dated 16.07,2007, passep by the tlnd Civil Juage C!ass-l, Ambikapur, in civi! suit No. 20-4/07, whereby and whereudnerthe application preferred by the af(plicant under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was dismissed as barre<p by 141 days, by dismissing the application for condonation of tjelay in filing the said application. Heard on IA No. 1 , appli^ation for condonation of delay. Shri Agrawal, iearned citiunse! appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicanf) was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring this revision withii)) the stipulated time, therefore, the delay occurred in filing this revjsion deserves to be condoned. Having heard the coujisel appearing for the applicant, having perused the order imptjigned and a1so having perused the grounds taken in the applicatic|n for condpnation of delay, 1 do not find any substance in the appli|;ation. The appiicant preferrecj the application for substitution of his name in place of decease|j plaintiff which was barred by 141 'days. The trial court, on due (jonsideration of the facts, dismissed ^:;.;-,i ;;-:?• •.•.';<:>:T:''K?^.'''' ^¥;^te.^S=5A>,(^^S=?.-=a^. ^-^:.^i^-e°M'-^-^-issa"---^'--. ^^^^^^y^s^^ C-78 'd^i "ywiriAi, ®^ms,fterey *iiic»T^Tr^ 3n$?rrof^ire aanaii^OTBqte Sahu ^' W^20 3TT^9TWIS (ijclijd^i) g^iTWTifitTaii^r *l«fri41-l*1tt|dT^"fel^ ^[ul^K ?>3rf^T3ii^?r the applicatlon for condor application. The said order wa vide impugned order, and ther| s affirmed by the appellate court sagainst the instant revision has been preferred after a period ofp57 days. The ground taken in th^ application for condonation of delay is not satisfactory. If the ^pplicant was unable to prefer this revision due to financial crlsis flien he could have approached to Legai Aid Committed forthwitfi. Moreover, even on merits, It appears that, the applicant hav^ no case. In view ofabove, the apFJIication for condonation ofdelay in filing the revision, being devoii^ of substance is liabie to be and is hereby rejected. Consequent|y, the revteion stands dismissed. No order asto costs. I Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge u^tS^S^n^^^^. •M