^^ —^^ t ^ i^fc, '•;• 1 ^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No; /2006 [S.B.] APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS sh@teBench Smt. Sarta Gupta Wd/o late Rajendra Gupta, aged about SS years, resident of village Manpur, Tahsil ^o^A^'y^District PROPOSED APPLICANT IN THE TRIAL COURT VERSUS 1i, Bena Bai Wd/o of Shiv Dayal Sao [Gupta], aged about 95 years, R7o at present Shankar Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur [M.PJ [SINCE DECEASED] Through- Anil Rohra, aged aLout 30 years, son of Laxman Das Rohra, [Sindhi] R/o Shankar Ward, Mungeti, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur [M.P.] ORIGINAL APPLICANT IN THE TRIAL COURT Rajpal Singh Chhabra son of Jaipal SinghChhabra, R/o Shankar Ward, Mungeli, Tahsit Mungeli, District Bilaspur [Snow White Main Road, Mungeli] ORIGINAL NON-APPLICANT IN THE TRIAL COURT. CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 23[E] OF THE C.G. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT T :-HC-22 3TT^T^)T I^N'sn^r »)4-iich ^f^a 'S^t ^WM^, ^xll^^KS, f^^l^y MW^\{ $h+4icb 3^?T '^SK _&.^.€.....^.?.-......^ f^ 2004 "^•^8T" ^T^T'^TT^R ^rf^f S.B.Non'ble ShriJusticeN.K.^Iaarwal 04-01-2010 Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Shri Anup Majumdar, coun^el Reard flnally. The Instant reviston is 20-03-2006 passed by S.D.O. Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. Court below instead of deciding t|ie Rute 3 of the C.P.C. flled by the case which has been preferred 23(E)oftheChhattisgarh, •theAct'). The facts briefly stated as The applteant Smt. Bens) jandlord of non-appticant Rajpal under Section 23(E) of the Act During pendency of that petition | and the present applicant Smt. ^i be tegal representative of decea^ed deed dated 14-07-1999 applied place of Bena Bai under Order non-applicant derned such execijit Court based on the fact that the folr cni1Llf<n<fl<1 'RTTOf ^ fe1c^ ^^K i;:T3ri^R3:n^T loounsel for the applicant. for the non-applteants. dir^cted against the order dated |[Revenue], Mungeli, District J96-B 121/97-98 whereby the t|ie application under Order 22 ^ppljcant, dtemjssed the whole the applicant under Section Accomilnodatjon Control Act (forshort inder: Bai cjaiming herself to be »inghfriedtheevictionpetition evtetion pf the non-appltoant. Bena Bai dled on 14-01-2003 iaria Gupta claiming herself to Bena Bal based on the WUI br substttution of her namein Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The tlon of WiJI. The teamed Trial >roperty stands in the name ©f 0 T IHC-22 3n^T^ r^ieh STI^T ^^ict) <-i^^i "—niiiii^ -^S[ •^|<41d<4, ^ft^TS^ ^<y1l^<l< 3?T^?T '^RT^ __.c.:..^...^....<^ W<Cftl 9b^|Cb 200^ •^^sr' 3^T"^Tl8;R'^f^T - > one unKar s/o shivdayal in t| finding that the case involves the| the application itself. Hence, Learned counset submit that the trial Court ought t|: filed by the appllcant under Ordet own merits without going further| petition at this stage that too hearing to the applteant therefo| remanded for fresh decislon of th< application. Per contra, learned applicants supported the order landlord the cause of action doesl submit that theWIII is not proved 1 have heard learned couns theorder jmpugned. A bare perusai ofthe ord< the tearned Trial Court withot preferred by the apptfoant under djsmissed the main applteation involves the question of titte whiclji the competent Court and only thei) entitled to file the present suit wh| of this Court is not correct. Wt ie Nazul record, recorded a Iquestion of tttle and dismissed thjslrevision. appear|ng for the applicant would have decjded the appMcation 22 Rule 3of the C.P.C. on its into the merits of the evtetien wjt(iout gjving any opportuntty of t-e, the matter requires to be trial Court on the substitutjon couhsel <=hl^id^ri ^Hdf ^ 'fe^t' <^^l< ^srf^TH^niST ahd appears for the non- submjte that after de^i of |not survive. He woyld fyrther ti accordance with law. ^elforthepartiesandperused Oljl impugned would reveal that >|jt deeidlng the applioation 0rder22 Rule 3 ofthe C.P.C. the ground that a& the case is required to be decided by i|eafter, the appUcant would be ^ich in the considered opMon ^ether or not the appllcant is /) ^fe^ , y:A.. "^ fff"'^^ \ \:. '^I^SIj^^^iti 's%:....^ '^.^ '<:l^r~i^;s- ^n^T^T f^"li<=h W^T 9h^i<=h ^Ra 1 ^ Kvr T ^aET ^||<4|<^|<L|, ^Tll^^Ko, fQI<ni^ll< 3TT^?T '^^K e • /^.^o< 8 HFRC^T^RT^ f^sr' 200^ ^TT^T'^Tl^T ^TftcT - ^ entitled for substttution under prder be decided first by the trial Cjourt Court could enter into the rrterjts question of maintainabilSty of ^viction Therefore, in the consti revision deserves to be allovkc matter is remanded to thel application for substitution merits in accordance with lavt|F any observation made by this | filed ICourt in this order. _.__^..__-&— ^i^foi^i ^i^<yiT^T [^^ <t^^i< ^'STf^R 371^T 22 Rute 3 of C.P.C. hasto and only thereafter, the trial of the matter even on (he petition. |dered opinion of this Court, the /ed and i®hereby aKowed. The trtal Court to dedde flrst the by the appljcant on its owh and without belng influenGed by Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge [Tfr^'^fe^ ^'^