K-SfiS'f. i-il-~^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CTVIL REVISION N0,_ 2.3 OF 2011 APPLICANT/ DEFENDANT ]?';•'' ^ ^<^ ^•""^ ,<-*• \\ RESPONDENTS/ : 1. PLAINTIFFS Smt. Videshi @ Rang, W/o Abhixnanyu Gond, aged about 40 years, -R/p VUlage Borida, P.S.-Sariya, Tahsil Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (c.G.). VERSUS Panneshwar Singh, S/o Shyam Sunder Singh, aged about 66 years, Caste-Gond, VUlage Borida, P.S. Sariya, Tahsil Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh, (C.G.). CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OP THE CODE OP CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR APPUCANT Dsfendant CiyJiRevisjonJMa29of2011 Smt. Vedeshi Versus Rang. RESPONDENTS Ptelntiffs Parmeshwar Singh and another CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 11 S OF THE CODE OF CIVIL (SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Anarwai. J.) Present : iyir. Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appiicant. Mr. L.P. Dubey, counse! for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State/respondent No.2. (29.08.2011) Heard. 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 1 2.01.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Sarangarh, District - Raigarhin Civll Appeal No.11-A/2010 is underassail in the instant revision. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Respondent No.1 preferred a civll suit claiming relief of declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Class II, Sarangarh. Applicant/defendant herein also preferred counter ciaim in that suit. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit for default and decreed counter claim preferred by the applicant/defendant herein. Respondent No.1 preferred first appeal against the above judgment snd decree before the first App.ellate Court along with application for condpnation of deiay in the filing the appeal. Learned first appellate Court after hearing both tee parties, allowed the respondent No.l's application and condoned the delay in filing the appeal and fixed the matter for final arguments. 3. Shri Sunit Sahu, tearned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit: respondent No.1 faiied to explain the delay of 29 days occurred in filingthe appeal and, therefore, the learned first Appeilate Court exceeded its.jurisdiction in allowing the above apptication. ./^»-A "^':-^