aaii aanaaooad ^lAl^ do aaoodo SM s/n NOisrAainiTMo .^-•' ^. ^ovA (•9-3) BjnQ -isia '8 '481 '!B|!4g 'jeBeN !}ULUS 't'9/V )0|d 'ZZ -ON »S8JtS o/U 'iuog pESBJd Bieg 0/9 -SJA £9^ <^ ^^SSX5:>!^> psBe'iuosejpueqopBjeLis^-^ ^.-••" ~ ynuieidflueoiidde-uof^ -...<s;^>*-^'''' ^$ ^^^^^, •SA ('Q-O) Bjno'nsiQ 'g'qei'ieiiiig z-jopsg'frl. -)asj}9 '£>)00|g 'Z-ON'JIO o/y 'AjB4pnoL)o |B|!4snq» aie-1 o/g "-SJA eg sBy '^eqpnoqo ssojeyqujey »,.,... eo/' 5l'^ luapuajaaflueoiiddv^ •ON uoisjAsy |]A!O H (•o'o)andsvTia do HyvosiiiVHHo do lynoo HOIH aHiTiT ^^ 3)1^1 •^tft'ife T?8ff 3n^T a»*i(eft TST '<iw{w-f, vs-^ww, (s<ciiyy,< ...C<S..^o.....MrZ£2 an^T '<ra% (yit^stT) ?^<tTORW?7f -<s.' Shii H.B. Agrawal,. Sr. Advocate, for fhe appUcant. Heard on adiaission. Feeliag aggrieved 7«itli 2003 passed by fhe District S/2003 whereby aad whereutic the plaiatiff directing the ap| 1[he judgiaent aad decree dated 5-7- pudge, Durg ia CivU Appi^ ^der tlie decree passed Ih favour of along with iaterest has bei are pieferred by fbe applicaat he^ revision has been filed. Brieffacts oftiie case recoveiy of Rs. 20,000/- Coa|t was not belonguig to fhe appl^ by luin to fhe respondent at 25-1-99. The suit sliop wa^ Haauiiiaa Prasad, origiQal o-^' aiid fherefore, the suit for 4f iaterest aad costs was nled. Tlie tri.al Court oa a clo; fhe judginent aad decree for ^ per anmim on 31-10-2002 to| IpUcaat hereui to pay Rs. 20,000/- ja aiBrmed aad the counter claiia heia has been disniissed, fhe insta.at ^r^fei'^i^T ^TWCTl* ^f fe%^ ^for-^K ii-aifiCTsn^i ^.dvocate \vifh Shri PaiiJiaj Agr&Vi'eJ, tllat the respondent filed a suit for tenduig fhat although fhe siiit shop :aiit but fhe sam.e was given on rent pie rate of Rs. 2500/- per m.onth on ^ got vacated oa.—24-2-99by oae 7n.eT by showiiig originsl docuineiit, ;coveiy of-Rs. 20,000/- along w&h scrutiay offlie evidence led, passed PS. 20,000,'- along vdth iaterest @ 60/o favour of fhe plainti.tf, The applicaiit I- -ssj "41.41d-4, yal'M'i^, fs«yii+ilj,< ^^ w flf SII^iTV ft-ii'ti Itll ji).li;l ii [t,aittrttu'~ntlu"riiii j«. ^gim^to 3ii^i went m. appeal. The First A-^ inaterial on record, dismissed Shri Agrawal, learnec 'tiiil?t4):i IimBS ^ fe'at u»i<;]<. i?3ifilH3(I^[ ipeUate Court after appreciating tiie the appeal. Hence fhis revision. Sr. Coiinsel appeanag for the applicaat would siibmit fhatjleamed botfi tbe Coiirts below weQt wrong ia dismissing the counjter claun of the applicant. He would further subiait that if fhe C4urt comes to a conclusion fh.at this revision has no merit, then t^ie appUcation filed by fhe appUcant under Order 20 Rule 11 of C.3| ofpayiuent ofdecretal amouatl Haviug Iieard leamed cc '.C. Biay be allowed graatmg facitity ia instaUinents to the applicant. )uusel for fhe appUcant aad haviu^ perused the recori, and fhe |order uapugued, I do not fiad any jurisdictional iUegality ia ffae j; jurisdictional illegality leadiag idgmeat and decree passed by bofh the Courts below. Shri Agralwal failed to point out aay such. to failure ofjustice. Therefore, this revision beiag devoid of subst^ace, d.eserves to be aad his bens 1 disirdssed. Jn view of the fact that I fUed iii fhe yeai- 2004 and nc he appUcation {or^tstaSia.eiits was \w period of 4-5 yeais has already lapsed, tfae application filed u^ider Order 20 Riile 11 of C.PC. is also disinissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge