IN THE HIGH COURT CW JUmCATtJRE AT BHASPtJR fC.G.^ CivU revision No^%./2003 N'e Bencft ^iPPLICANT: - ^ Rupdas Manikpuri S^ Lujhava R^ viUage Mohatara Tehsil Saktf DistrictJanjgii^Champa. VERSUS $[ON APPLICANT: - , Chotalal S/o Sehublal aged 55 years Bedakot Tehsil Sahti district Champa. w CIVIL REVISION UNDERSECTION 115 aVU^PRQCEDURE CODE li'l ^y^^x^l'i W!--£:s^W^^ *it4i^a^*ir<i» \3T^^|€||<;^i?t?T?|<<1«|<ByIS(%l^l^X ^ .^.^3./e.X..,,., ^1^200? 3TT^Tq?Tft^icb H^T3[T^^Ta?WP .,^^. ^J sni^CT^^i'iei^^ ^RNiFr^Ra 3TT^T 21.11.2005: ., .Cpl^llc')*^ <1|»tCOl'^ffcM£l^Bl^lX ^3rf^RT3II^%TyA ^^^ ^ •^ Shri S.V. Purohit leam|ed counsel forthe applicant. Heard. l Leam^d counsel for fie applicant by the insjtant revision petftion t. has impugned.the legality ^f the order dated 4.1Q.2003 by whichthe execution petjtiw preferred executing,:Cou||1l Hcwever, withdraw this petition as th| decision pfthe Supreme Coi| Chander Rai and others rep| ofShiv Shakti COOD. Housil by the applicant has bjeen reieeted by the learned counsel for the applicant seeks to 3 same is not maintainable Jn vjew of the irt in the matter of Surva Devi Rai Vs. Ram lorted in (2003lVol. 6 a? well as in the matter lifl Societv. NaaDur Vsl Swsrai Developers and_othg!S..reported in (2DC131 6 SCC 689. He alsjo prays for llberty to take up appropnate proceedi| -^••^ f In view of above, the with Uberty as afpresaid. ^gs available to him und^r the law. revision petition is dismissed as wtthdrawn I Sd/- \: 1 Dhirendra Mishra ^ Judge | ^ /8P/FS/2005-20,000 '5?