IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. P)<^ OF 20C APPLICANTS DEFENDANTS : ^1. Bhadomati, Wido^ of late Bodhram Kanwar, aged about 70 years. \^J^ ^M. 2,Santosh, S/0 late Bodhram Kanwaraged about 40 years. ^r.-^A ^ Rameshwar, S/0 late Bodhram >'y x<^ »-y\.^ ^^... ^<^-''" ^ Kanwar, aged abot 26 years. 4. Shankar Lal, S/0 late Bodhram Kanwar, aged about 20 years. All are R/0 Vitlage- Kalmi, Tahsil & District- Raigarh, (C.G.) ^or ^^ ^:^" ^. R f Chaitram, S/0 Ajambar Kanwar, aged about 45 years, R/0 Village- Jaitha, Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa,(C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANTS : I/ Karam Singh, S/0 Patiram, Caste- Kanwar, aaed about 63 vears, R/0 ^ ^^y ^^c^ ^^c^c^d) Ty^ /" Village- Kalmi, Tahsil & District- Raigarh,(C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through CoHector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh,(C.G.) i,v^.u.^ S. C^J(-^^ S?o: AlQ^.r /<^^^- ^ <^b^r c/,s- ye-i^ ^/o, v'/'lt^ - •JcKi^-^. r^..- _s«^-b'^Ki^ rjoi>^\^^^np-> C6 ^>> CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE T —78 STT^T ^r k^icf» ^T8H ^TT^T^l^hF 'TST ^1^1^-4, ^tli-H'iKo, f«l<ni-(-l^< (-t^SJlo- 3o /O^ ^rw?ff «»*iic»»••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-•--•••-• j^ 200 '3TI^?T ^^^ (^f^^S) ^^TW'^f^ci 3;H^T SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICEl 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 12-3-2010 Shri Sunil Sahu wifh appUcant. Heard on adinission. Instant revisiou is direct passed io. Civil Sidt No, Class II, Raigarh/ Brieffacts ofthe case ar^ The non-applicaut No. 1[ present applicaiits to th|< dated 31-12-2006 passef void aad is not bindin^ hereio. appeared ia th^ appMcation under Orde^ barred on the prmcipl^ disxnissed. Leamed Court below appMcation holdiag the Shri Sunil Saliu, leaaji^ subiuit fhat appareutly 11 of C.P.C. and, thereg rejectiiig ffae applicaats'l Haviag heard leamed ^ perused tfae order ixo.pu^: phri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate, for tlie cni^f<!i<fll ^TR^ff ^f f^st <f^i^i< ^r^tRm^T^T H.K. ACSARWAL |ed agaiast the order dated 3-3-2008 |112-A/2007 passed by 3rd Civil Judge as uuder:- filed a suit for declaiB.tion agaiast fhe e effect fhat the judginent and decree i in Civil Suit No. 73-A/2006 is illegal, on the uon-applicaat. The appUcants case aad raised objection by filing 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. that tlie suit is of res judiada and deserves to be viue mipiigned order disniissed the said >uit niamtamable. Hence this revision. |ied counsel for the applicaats would the iastaiit siiit is barred under Section fore, leamed Court below has erred ia [appUcation. ;ounsel for the applicaiits aad havio-g ;ned, I do not find aay substance m fhe XI-HC—78 3?n^r ^T f^rw TTSn ^TT^T ^RNT ^wiiyiiii illmli <SL^ + ^ w<<^(r «»*<i<»» ^Sf T<1NI<yt^, ^tll'H^Ko, [®t<ni<-l^< ^^^.oS°/0^ "^ 200 ^TT^?T Tra^T ( yil^^) ^^IW ^rfpf 3TT^I suP" 8. revision. TIie mstaat applicant challengmg fhe suit on fhe ground fhat tl fraud upon hioi and thus him. By no stretch ofima^ suit is barred under the The revision beiag devoid aad is hereby dismissed. oDnt^^li 'WTcTf ^* f^Tst <F3i<^i< '^3tfm3^T lias been preterrea Dy the non- coinpn>iiiise decree passed in earlier ic same has been obtained by playiag is illegal, void aad not bindiiig upon iaation, it can be said fhat fhe iastant iaciple of resjudicntcL ?f substance, deser^es to be disiaissed Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge