/>^ / 7^oN7uDpueJea7?uePuoases7 (03) o[n6jns 'jndfojns lisqoi 'u"MP^9 s's«j^S.^ ^DW'^W -°/s''UJDa "JD^OS /"l£ [Z'ON ^DpU^^U/^uePuodsay; (03) o?n6jns P14Si.a 'JndrDJns <^DLlpAlDL|g UOI.^D^ 9^1.1°d '^ofc^^ )0 souep.s^J^^ ^^t)''sjDeA 09 ^nociD^pa^ ^ea'-^MS -o/M 'iAea !4"Aoo (03) o[n6jns P!4SiQ -jndlojns lisMDi 'UD^DApqg 'uoi^S 931|0d 'JHMO 9BDII!A -0/^ ^uessjd +v •(oinLiqoqg) JHLUIDX P14SIQ ;DI^UDi0^, 'opuDqo UOI^D^S 9c)!lod 'on^W •o/y '^DSA ^^"°qD p96'V '^UIS PDSDJd ^M6D^,^^. ro/s VM6uiS'AD[IA @ posDJd qsip6Dr' snsyaA (03) ofn6jns p!4S!Q .ndloins 1!S4D1_ •UDLI*DA":>lla.^wS e3i|0d ^nqo' SBDIIIA -o/y SAoqD |lV 'SJDQA oC4noclD pe6v 'A©a ^^ '°/s ^sejns- 'SJDQA ss ^noqo ^ , .pe6y 'AQQ LUDAqs •o/S MseuDy ,^r ^ 'SJDGA Z£^noqD peBV 'AGQ LUDAqS -o/S Mseui.Q 'IS sjoaA 017 ^noqo peDV 'AOQ ^DAL^S -o/S ^SD11D^ 'SJDQA QZ ^°qD P®6V -IDMSpr nip^ ap1 -o/S ASQ ^oAqs ...0<>. ""'v'^ ,<'0i- ..^y '^^~ <'-^**' SlNVaN3J3Q slNVonddv CIVIL REVISION UNDER SEC.115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 11 5TW^T l^^W ^wT^TPTTc^T, tpnlwKo, Roi<<i^'< ..LS. <S! an^9Tq^p(4cii^6i<g) Wt20^ W^^T^TR^Jcb PCTSn^^Tfb^Jcb ?^TTW?^rfl?T3TI^5T S.B.Hon'bleShriJusticeN.K. 30.3.2010 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, None for the respondents{ Heard on application On due consideration, 1 applicants is succeeded in the revision. Accordingly the aj accordingly condoned. Heard on admission. The instant revision is (t 08.06.2007, passed by the Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, in civ| The brief facts of the casel The non applicant/plainti1| relief of declaration, possession) settlement deed dated 14.06.191 25.02.1998 as ineffective ag^ respondent No. 2 & 3. The applicants, in their that non applicant No. 2 has applicant No. 3 has died in Advjscate for applicants. for c|3ndonation ofdelay. im satisfied that the counsel for exp|aining the delay caused in filing >plication is allowed and delay is cpi<<Io<n»i«ii+ioT^"fc^£l^Ri^i^ ^ 3lRl*l 3TI^^T Aaarwal |irected against the order dated [Second Civil Judge Class II, 1lsuitNo.115-A/05. 1 are as under: No. 1 instituted a suit claiming and also for declaring the family 76 and registered sale-deed dated ^inst the applicants as well as I'eturn statements, have pleaded |died in the year 1976 and non Decelmber, 1982. ^IHrtl $??^7^ ^wT^TPTTc^, y-cyi^-ild, Rril^-l^ ..:^.....!.^ (A&/ 3T1^9T traq»(ijcll^dtg) ^20^§ w^^TqnRi^ich ^TT 3T1^^Tw^icp .^ Sahu ?^TSf?^?T3TT^5T —^ cpK4lw<Tl^ +11<1oV^"(^^£l^Rrl^l^ ^ 3lKl<l 3TT^5T The applicants herein thjereafter preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit as the suit has not been legally The trial court, vide impu<fined order, held that at this stage since the suit has been filed al^< cannot be dismissed on th| 11 of CPC for dismis instituted. il^o against the applicants, the suit i|s ground, and dismissed the application filed by the applicanlls. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, le^rned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the ord^r impugned is patently illegal and the same deserves to be set asipe. Having heard the counsep appearing for the applicants and having perused the order impu^ned, since the suit was also filed against the applicants, therefo] untenable. In view of above, 1 do n^ the order passed by the court b^ The revision being devoic| hereby dismissed. No order as^ "e, it cannot be said that suit is ^ find any illegality or perversity in ^low. of substance is liable to be and is ^ costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge