GWA a- Mrs. Sumitra Bai W/o Shri Mohan Singhm Vill. Barmuda, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Narayan S/o Shri Mohan Singh Vin. Barmuda, Tah. & Disit. Raigarh (C.G.) NéN APPLICANTS $6 - /1 /vawt’¥¥s i L? 3 g / Damrudhar Patei § S/o Shri Mohan Singh Viil. Barmuda, Tah. & Distt. .Raigarh (0G) X Saniosh Kumar Patei S/o Shri Hansh Ram Paiei Viii. Muraii Paii, P.0.Kirodimai Nagar, Tah. & DisttRaigarh (C.G.) i . Smt. Anita Patel Viil. Anwara Bhata, P.0Tarapur Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Prahiad Patai Viil. Rani Sagar, P.O.Kharsia Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Doleshwar'Patel, S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Viil. Barmuda, Tah. & DisttRaigarh (C.G.) State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhattisgarh. /,, ‘ @Ké? Appiication for revision under Section 115 ofihe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . w / “ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Civil Revision No. /2003 > APPLICANT] if“!KANHAI RAM PATEL, Aged 55 yrs. /R’EVISI0NE S/o Shri Mohan Singh Pate‘ Q #wdm’i (Na, l - Village Barmuda, Tah. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus XI-HC—22 WW“? ..C.L.V...\.\m£.{£..Y...\...mg“ ’ I C: X m mm WW6? WM§§Q¥W $af—anaméa ‘Thc inipugnnd judgmént and decme passed by the v Appellate 001111, has beenpassckl under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procodum and said judgment and anemia C.P.C. i, 12]05(2005 appealable under Onler 43 of x K: \E, Shri Ravish Verma, Warned counsel for petitioner. Shri S.N. Nande, leaxned cmunsel for mspondeu/ts No. 1 to 3. Shri J.D. Bajpaj,‘ leamcd Govt. Advo'catc for mspondcnt gi * . No.7] State. None for other respondents . Partics are hcatd on the q tion pfmamtamablhty Respondents No. 1 to 3 a Civil Suit for Mtion and also for mcsnn pm&s. amcd trial Coult dccidcd thc‘ preliminary issue mgarding j sdiction and held that the Civil Com has no jurisdictimi to txy e suit. hmce pasaed an Ogden to return the plaint for presantati beforc the Competent Cdurt The ' ‘ said Older damd 27/06]2001 been chalknged in Civil Appeal No.17/2002 bcforc Ist Additio Disuict Judgc, Raigarh, who after hearing the parties, dec' ed the‘ appeal on 29/ 11/ 2002, allowed the appeal. set aside e order passed by the trial Court and Vida impugned judgment atd decree mmanded thr case back to trial Court for deciding M Name m' accoxdance with law. Against thc said judgncnt, this lwision has been pmfcxmd by onc > of the defendants. a” XI—HC—22 ”rs raJu Section 115 (2) of the C.P.C. "I‘hc High Court Section, vaxy or war against W timer to the High suboniinats them . Section 115 (1) of the C.P. to call for thc records of those Therefore, when the impugncd ju in accoxdancc with the pmvisions jurisdich'on to call for the mootd power to vaxy or reveme the impu Themfom, the revision, being be dismissed and is acconiingiy leads a3 under. shall not, under thig mverse anydeclee or ' ." . empowers the High Court only cases in which no appcal lics. gmcnt and docme is appealablc of C.P.C.. neither this Court has of concerned cage nor has any ‘ ed judment and decxee. not mainfainablc, is liahlc to dwniissed. Q V Sd/- H " V.K. Shrivastava Judge {View