1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2010 1. NOORJAHAN W/O ABDUL KHALIK AND OTHER R/O RAVIDAS NAGAR,TAH. TUMSAR, DIST BHANDARA 2. AYESHA W/O ABDUL GALIB QURESHI R/O RAVIDAS NAGAR,TAH. TUMSAR, DIST BHANDARA 3. SHAKIL AHAMAD S/O ABDUL SATTAR QURESHI R/O RAVIDAS NAGAR,TAH. TUMSAR, DIST BHANDARA 4. ABDUL GALIB S/O ABDUL SATTAR QURESHI R/O RAVIDAS NAGAR,TAH. TUMSAR, DIST BHANDARA 5. ABDUL KHALIK S/O ABDUL SATTAR QURESHI R/O RAVIDAS NAGAR,TAH. TUMSAR, DIST BHANDARA .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. JAIBUNNISA W/O MUSTAK AHAMAD R/O NEAR TUKDOJI PUTALA, MANEWADA, NAGPUR .. RESPONDENT/S Mr. S. P. Hedaoo Adv for respondents. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED: 8 th JULY, 2010. 2 P.C. On 2nd July 2010 and today the counsel for the applicant called. Absent. Reply is filed. Civil Revision Application moved against the order dated 5th march 2009, in terms of Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. Absence of the applicant further need not be entertained. Civil Revision Application dismissed. Later on: 1. Heard Ms. Shinde learned counsel for the revision applicant and Mr. Hedaoo learned counsel for the respondent sole. Earlier order of dismissal recalled. 2. Heard in civil revision application finally. The revision applicant has urged the learned Judge to allow her to file the proceedings in terms of Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as an indigent person. Case is, the defendant allegedly entered into an agreement with applicant to sell suit property for consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs). Plaintiff allegedly paid Rs. 10,00,000/- on 11th 3 June 2000, another instalment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 5th January 2003 and one more said instalment. According to plaintiff since entire consideration was paid, however the defendant did not execute the sale deed, plaintiff wants to file a suit for specific performance of contract. However for want of deposition of requisite court fee, request in terms of Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code was made. 3. Learned Judge has evaluated the evidence adduced before him and it reveals to him that application carries no merit. The learned Judge found the applicants concealing material facts from the Court and some calculations. Applicant no.4 admitted in the evidence that he possesses house property having value of Rs.5 to 6 lac which is mortgaged with Cooperative Credit Society. He has his own house at Gowardhan Nagar Tumsar. Tax assessment was produced at Ex. 33. His father also possesses house at Tumsar assessed at Ex. 34, his mother possesses agricultural land at Balaghat. Agricultural loan for Rs. 3,50,000/- was obtained from 4 credit society, in the year 2006 motorcycle worth Rs. 48,000/- was purchased for his son. 4. Considering these aspects the learned Judge was certainly justified in negativing the contentions to allow to prosecute under Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. The order does not call for any interference. Civil Revision Application dismissed. No costs. JUDGE svk