KS cc^ IN THE HIGH GG3LRT OF ©HHATTISGARHAT BILAS'Ufi Civil Revision Scsf__i~l^ . of 2003, P13.CW! s'Ljwnrf NOC ^CTFB'mSlTS' ^:^^"" 2003. f M/s.Bhri Krishna Sall Mill Registered B;artnership Firm Balodabazar Naka Bhatapara Post Bhatapara, Tahsit Bhatapara Districi Haipur (Chhattisgarh) :V_E_R_.S U S:_ i /-'l.i S.'Tami EiErtile f&E&ds feeds *? Rajiv Sinha aged 58 years son of Tgpna. Ei;asad Sinha 3-. Ni-fcin Sinha aged32 years son of y ./ Rajiv Sinha '<<^A -•••"'' ^' . All Hesident of Opposite Purai Sall 1 Mll Ganjpara Ward Post Raipur • j TUteii &, Bi^fcslc-t Baipur (Chhattisgarh)i ttWL REWSXGKiUNDEB SEGrESN iIB ©F@0BE 0F Ga:'%£.ga©GEB@BE ti;t M B B XI-HC-22 3iI^?F ?iT Ri-ti'h silS?! i?ti^ ^tii?) ^3,-;:ziTqRF:f; .^•dte*N.^wy, r 'q^? .^^.^^s. *<|t|CTI S^tff% "H^ 2003> 311^1 ?'RIWHfN 30.6.2006 C.R.NQ.19S/2Q03 Shri H;BAgrawal, Senior fortheapplicant. , 1-feard on aclmissiof't^ This revjslon i&directed a< Civil SuttN®.51-BQ002 bythe The petiUoner is aggrieved t>ecai Rule 6 of the Givil Proceckire ' Courtandth&triatCourttlidnot The submission of leam^d applicant has claimed-a siim of|^ N0.51-B/20Q2. According t6 tt] made in the written statement was required to pass a judgmet submits that even if the jytlgmei| trial Courton admissions;itw6ifl the suit before the trial Coyrt; In the opinion of this Coyt Section 115 of the Cdde of Givj maintainable. A plain reading of Sectior| stress is w the quesBon ^pptying for reyisjon woutd prQeeieding. Iftheansvreris^^ 'ii!^I<-(4-ttITtRif'9i'fS(zi''<f«l.y]< . - ^i"W:gTT31I^r' l^dvpGate with Shri J.K.Gypta, counsel taitistorderdatedlS.3.2003,passedin tet AddjUpnal District Judge, Raipur. )sehisapplicatjonfilec!;under;0rder12, (pocle has toen ^ismissed by^ the trial (ass ajudgment Qnadmissioris. counsel fpr the applicant isthat the ^Rs30,29,137=58 in the said civil suit t& Sppticant, certain admlssions ,vrere in view of th? above, the trial Court ; |rt on admissjons. However, he ftirther ^t would ftave been pronouneed by We (Id npt baveted to the final disposal of |t, in view of the amendment brought in Procedure, this revision would riot be ahd wheltlier 115 as it stahds makes itclear that the the order in favour of the party ave given: finatity to suit or otl'ier " then the revision is maintaihable. But ^>- -—- XI-HC-22 311^1 ^il' (<;li?h' SiI^I sft*iiqT1yTi^ SII^IYRITW:-gfttT _^— ^tl^f^ •S^'^IFIRPT, 'S^tOTB, ftcil'yy c^-w^~ *<W<1Tait|I^ 2003 on the contraryf if the 'answer maintainable. Here the'Gounsel fpr the applj judgment would have been passed] not have led tofinal disposal ofthe Part.. ." . • ' .: 1' . ., \.' -^ln yiCT/ of the, abpve, Wf mainteinabla Howeyer, t^ appt) appropnate remedy avEtflableunder|the impugned order be retumecl tb demanded withjn a period of 15 day^ from today The revision stands flnally dis^osed of. is "no" then the revision is not licanthimselfassertsthatevenifthe |dn admissions.onrecord, it would (jass being admission of the claim in revision is dismissed as not |cant would. be at liberty to avail law,, The certified copy of the jthe Tcoynset for the applicant, if <tl!<lt<t4l1!<1<31 ^ tt^t <P>ltrit< ^ S^ff.S^S. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge